A FAITH-BASED PROGRAM EVALUATION: MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF SEMINARY STUDENTS AT THE LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY

by

BRUCE M. SABIN B.G.S. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000

M.A. University of Central Florida, 2002

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

in the Department of Educational Research, Technology, and Leadership in the College of Education

at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida

Spring Term 2006

Major Professor: LeVester Tubbs

ii

© 2006 Bruce M. Sabin

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct an outcomes-based program

evaluation for the Louisiana State Penitentiary (Angola) campus of the New Orleans

Baptist Theological Seminary. The study included one primary research question, with

two subquestions. The primary research question asked to what extent students in the

program developed moral judgment consistent with program goals of rehabilitating

students and preparing them for effective ministry. The first subquestion asked whether

statistically significant differences existed in the moral reasoning of students of different

class years. The second subquestion asked whether statistically significant differences

existed in the moral reasoning of students of different personality types.

A cross-sectional study was conducted with students during the fall of 2005 using

the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

instruments. All 101 program students were invited to participate in the study. To provide

a benchmark for student scores, 30 Seminary faculty members were asked to complete

the DIT-2. The student response rates were 94% for the DIT-2 instrument and 97% for

the MBTI instrument. The response rate for faculty was 20%.

After removing two outliers from the freshmen class, statistically significant

differences were found in the principled moral reasoning scores (P scores) of freshmen

(m = 22.146, sd = 12.002) and juniors (m = 30.274, sd = 13.165). No significant

differences were found in moral reasoning based upon personality types. The mean P

score among faculty members was 34.02 (sd = 15.25). In response to the primary

research question, it was determined student scores did show moral reasoning differences

iv

consistent with the program goals. Conclusions reached in this study were limited

because of the cross-sectional design. Further research is necessary before conclusions

may be generalized beyond the sample.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completing a doctoral degree has required years of work, but I did not go through

this alone. Many people have helped me tremendously. The most crucial help came from

my wife, Jennifer. She, quite simply, made this possible. Still, I could not have succeeded

without the help of many others who contributed greatly.

The members of my dissertation committee were critical to my success. I asked

Dr. Tubbs to serve as my advisor because I valued his commitment to student

development. Dr. Dave Boote had challenged my thinking from the beginning of my

doctoral studies and I knew he would challenge me to produce quality research. Dr.

Conrad Katzenmeyer offered invaluable experience in program evaluation. Dr. Harry

Coverston provided expertise in religious studies, personality typology and moral

development and he helped me integrate those various aspects of this research. Dr.

George Pawlas had a reputation as a dissertation guru, and he lived up to that reputation.

My work also benefited greatly from Dr. Mary Ann Lynn, who worked tirelessly as my

writing consultant.

Of course, this dissertation would not have been possible without support from

the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Drs.

Tim Searcy and John Robson of the Seminary, and Wardens Burl Cain and Richard

Peabody of Angola, were invaluable to my research. I must especially thank the

Seminary faculty who participated in this study despite the fact they were still rebuilding

their lives and their community after Hurricane Katrina.

vi

Finally, Jennifer deserves still more praise. Many people have encouraged and

supported me in many different ways, but her encouragement and support is pervasive.

Once again, she, quite simply, made this possible.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS CLARIFYING COMPONENTS..................... 1

The Angola College Program ......................................................................................... 1

Purpose............................................................................................................................ 6

Primary Research Question ............................................................................................ 7

Methodology................................................................................................................... 8

Population ................................................................................................................... 8

Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... 9

Reliability and Validity............................................................................................. 10

Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 15

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 17

Significance of the Study.............................................................................................. 19

Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................... 21

Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 22

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH ......... 23

What is Morality? ......................................................................................................... 23

Psychology of Morality ................................................................................................ 24

Piaget......................................................................................................................... 24

Kohlberg ................................................................................................................... 25

viii

Philosophy of Morality ................................................................................................. 29

Kant........................................................................................................................... 29

Rawls......................................................................................................................... 32

Kohlberg ................................................................................................................... 35

Fowler ....................................................................................................................... 42

Other Research Instruments...................................................................................... 43

Defining Issues Test...................................................................................................... 44

About the Defining Issues Test................................................................................. 44

Four-Component Model............................................................................................ 46

Rest and Moral Theory ............................................................................................. 46

DIT and Colleges Students ....................................................................................... 50

DIT and Christians.................................................................................................... 51

DIT and Prisoners ..................................................................................................... 61

DIT and Pedagogy .................................................................................................... 63

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).......................................................................... 70

MBTI Construction................................................................................................... 70

MBTI and the DIT .................................................................................................... 73

MBTI and Christians................................................................................................. 78

MBTI and Prisoners.................................................................................................. 83

MBTI and LSP.......................................................................................................... 84

Theology ....................................................................................................................... 85

Kohlberg and Theology ............................................................................................ 86

ix

Stage 7....................................................................................................................... 90

Theology as Contemplation ...................................................................................... 92

Baptist Individualism................................................................................................ 94

Baptists and Principled Morality .............................................................................. 95

Authority and Autonomy in Baptist Theology ......................................................... 97

Christian Education................................................................................................... 98

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 104

Introduction................................................................................................................. 104

Statement of the Problem............................................................................................ 105

Primary Research Question ........................................................................................ 106

Research Question 1a.............................................................................................. 106

Research Question 1b ............................................................................................. 107

Population and Sample ............................................................................................... 107

Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... 109

Defining Issues Test 2............................................................................................. 109

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.................................................................................. 109

Instrument Reliability and Validity ............................................................................ 110

DIT Reliability and Validity ................................................................................... 110

MBTI Reliability and Validity................................................................................ 112

Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 113

Data Analysis.............................................................................................................. 115

x

Summary..................................................................................................................... 116

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 118

Introduction................................................................................................................. 118

Research Questions..................................................................................................... 119

Research Question 1a.............................................................................................. 119

Research Question 1b ............................................................................................. 125

Faculty Data ............................................................................................................ 129

Summary..................................................................................................................... 130

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 131

Introduction................................................................................................................. 131

Summary and Discussion of Findings for the Primary Research Question................ 132

Study Limitations........................................................................................................ 135

Implications for Policy and Practice........................................................................... 136

Recommendations for Future Research...................................................................... 137

APPENDIX A: DEFINING ISSUES TEST 2 ................................................................ 139

APPENDIX B: STUDENT INFORMED CONSENT LETTER.................................... 152

APPENDIX C: FACULTY INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ................................... 155

APPENDIX D: STUDENT DEFINING ISSUES TEST 2 DATA................................. 157

LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................ 161

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Type of Percentage of US Population Demographic Groups ............................. 73

Table 2 Type Correlation with Values and Careers......................................................... 79

Table 3 Relationships between Personality and Criminal Charges ................................. 84

Table 4 Personality Relationships to Descriptors ............................................................ 85

Table 5 Independent Variable Scores for Participating Students by Class Year........... 121

Table 6 Anova Results for the Independent and Dependent Variables ......................... 121

Table 7 Minimum, Maximum and Range of Participants’ Scores by Class Year ......... 122

Table 8 P Scores: Freshmen and All Participating Students by Class Year .................. 123

Table 9 Analysis of Variance with Outliers Removed .................................................. 124

Table 10 Participants’ Personality Type Distributions .................................................. 126

Table 11 Distribution of Personality Dichotomies (N = 98).......................................... 127

Table 12 Participants’ Temperament and Spirituality Distribution............................... 127

Table 13 Mean P Scores for Personality Dichotomies (N = 98) ................................... 128

Table 14 Participants’ Temperament and Spirituality P Scores .................................... 129

xii

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

DIT……………………………………………………………………Defining Issues Test

DIT-2…….………………………………………………………….Defining Issues Test 2

LSP.………...…………………………………………………Louisiana State Penitentiary

MBTI…...……………………………………………………Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

NOBTS.………………………………………New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS CLARIFYING COMPONENTS

The Angola College Program

In 2004, the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola (LSP) was the nation’s largest

prison, housing more than 5,100 inmates. Every inmate was either convicted of a violent

felony or classified as a habitual offender; the average Angola inmate was sentenced to

88 years (Frink, 2004; “Confronting recidivism,” 2005). Of the inmates at LSP, 90%

were expected to never leave the prison (Severson, 2004).

In the early 1990s, college programs existed in hundreds of prisons across the

country. These programs relied heavily upon federal financial aid funding, such as Pell

grants. Congress cut funding for prison education, however, in 1995 (Karpowitz &

Kenner, n.d.). During the conservative attempts to restructure government, many

lawmakers viewed tax funded prisoner education as a poor investment (Nelson, 1995).

When the federal government cut Higher Education Act funding for educational

rehabilitation programs, Angola’s Warden, Burl Cain, began thinking of new ways to

educate prisoners (Frink, 2004). Partnering with the Judson Baptist Association,

Louisiana Baptist Convention, and the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

(NOBTS), Cain brought a privately funded theological education to the prison (Baker,

2000).

In 1995, a partnership between NOBTS and LSP created a college program

offering associate and bachelor’s degrees to prison inmates. Associate degrees were first

2

awarded in 1998, and the first bachelor’s degrees were awarded in 2000 (Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2000). In 2004, LSP was the only prison in

the United States offering college degrees to inmates (Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections, 2001). The LSP campus of NOBTS was one of 16 Seminary

extension centers and was regionally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges

and Schools (Frink, 2004).

In 1997, the program’s capacity was just 50 students (Moore, 1997). There were

104 students enrolled in 2000 (Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

2000). By 2004, the program enrolled more than 120 students. Even with increased

enrollment space available, the number of applicants exceeded the number of students the

program was able to enroll (Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

n.d.a). The popularity of the LSP Seminary was quite different than what Walsh (2000)

had observed in other prisoner education programs. Walsh (2000) found prisoner

education programs did not typically generate significant interest from prisoners.

Because the program had been sectarian in nature, admission required at least one

year of active involvement in one of the prison’s religious communities (Achord &

Moore, 1998). While the Seminary was a Christian institution, Muslims had been

admitted to the program. All LSP seminarians were required to possess a high school

diploma or GED (Severson, 2004). The admission requirements were similar to those of

students enrolled in the program on NOBTS’s main campus.

Once admitted to the Seminary, each inmate had the option of earning an

associate or bachelor’s degree in Christian Ministry (Louisiana Department of Public

3

Safety and Corrections, n.d.b). Students attended classes full-time and enrolled in 15

hours per semester. The program had even expanded to allow students to perform

internships served with previous Seminary graduates. To be eligible for internships,

students must have been in the senior year of the bachelor’s program. At the time of this

study, Angola reportedly had 67 program graduates and interns around the prison

(Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, n.d.b).

Graduates were credited with having a positive impact on the prison community

and had been involved in numerous churches (Moore, 1997). There was even a Christian

radio station, JLSP 91.7, “Incarceration Station,” within the prison. Because of the

success, the Angola Seminary had begun sending missionaries to other prisons. The

missionary program allowed graduates to leave the maximum security LSP and relocate

for two years to another Louisiana correctional institution (Severson, 2004).

The LSP Seminary had been a pioneering effort. While many other correctional

institutions had routinely offered religious programs, LSP was unique in offering

bachelor’s degrees, seminary degrees and in sending inmate missionaries to other

institutions. With 90 inmate-missionaries, the program had been rather extensive

(Severson, 2004).

A primary goal of the Seminary had been the moral development of students.

Warden Cain had said, “I wish other prison wardens could realize what we learned—that

the only rehabilitation is moral rehabilitation” (Frink, 2004, p. 39). Robert Toney, a

chaplain at Angola, also emphasized the moral nature of the Seminary program in his

statement that “moral rehabilitation is the only rehabilitation that works. If you just have

4

education, what you have done is just created a smarter criminal. The change must come

from within” (“Confronting recidivism,” 2005, p. 108).

Moral development had been an integral part of the NOBTS curriculum. The

Seminary designed its curriculum around five “core values.” These values were doctrinal

integrity, spiritual vitality, mission focus, characteristic excellence, and servant

leadership (Academic catalog, 2005-2006, p. 2). According to Dr. Timothy Searcy, the

Seminary’s Director of Institutional Effectiveness (personal communication, June 25,

2005), ethics had been a feature of each of the core values.

The Angola program was credited with creating social and moral change among

the inmate population. In a prison where violence was an almost everyday occurrence in

the 1990s, violence in 2005 was quite rare. While LSP was once known as the nation’s

most dangerous prison, no murders had occurred there since 1999 (Baker, 2002). One

inmate described the Seminary’s effect by saying, “I can now lay down at night and not

worry about what my neighbor is going to do to me or anything like that” (Severson,

2004, paragraph 9).

According to Angola’s Chaplain Toney, Angola had transformed from “the most

violent prison in America” to “the safest prison in America.” The frequency of violent

crimes at LSP had shown a steady decline since the Seminary began its program. The rate

of violence in Angola dropped by approximately 90% between 1996 and 2004

(“Confronting recidivism,” 2005, p. 108). Murders and suicides completely disappeared

from the prison (Baker, 2002). The safer atmosphere at Angola was compared to what

Warden Cain remembered from a prior decade. “I was getting called every week when I

5

was first warden here. We had murders, we had escapes, we had suicides—loss of

hope…” (Severson, 2004, paragraph 3). Speaking at a graduation of LSP seminarians,

Dr. Chuck Kelley, NOBTS president, explained the moral underpinning of the

Seminary’s mission in his statement that “God is willing to exchange our evil for his

good” (Achord & Moore, 1998, paragraph 5).

The Louisiana Department of Corrections attributed much of the change at LSP to

the Seminary. According to the Department website on rehabilitation and work programs,

“The prison in its previous unhealthy condition was known for its violence and frequent

escape attempts. Currently, Angola displays a peaceful and safe environment, which is

the best evidence of a successful, healthy religious program” (Louisiana Department of

Public Safety and Corrections, n.d.b, paragraph 9).

Cain viewed faith-based efforts as the most promising development in criminal

rehabilitation. He said, “nothing else but [the religious programs] should get the credit

[for Angola’s change]. We always had the educational programs. The only thing we did

different was we brought God to Angola” (Frink, 2002, p. 39). The program was

considered such a success in 2004 that wardens from prisons in other states were asking

NOBTS to consider opening campuses at their prisons (Myers, 2004). Later that year,

NOBTS opened a new campus at the Mississippi State Penitentiary and the Seminary

began developing programs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (Myers, 2005).

The creation and operation of the Angola Seminary was not easy. Some Louisiana

legislators opposed the program (Frink, 2002). The American Civil Liberties Union

challenged the program (Severson, 2004). Warden Cain was warned by other correctional

6

leaders the program would be dangerous. In describing the mindset of the correctional

community, Cain said, “They told me that one inmate cannot have any power over

another. Therefore he can’t preach or even lead a Bible study” (Frink, 2002, p. 37).

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to conduct a program evaluation for the Seminary

at LSP. Specifically, this study was designed to evaluate the program’s affect on the

moral development of students at LSP. An attempt was made to include a census of all

students in the LSP Seminary population.

The evaluation of the Seminary at LSP was important as national policy continued

to emphasize faith-based initiatives and also led to the United States having the highest

incarceration rate of any nation in the world (Mauer, 2003). The study of moral

development was a salient issue for the American public as well (Rest, Narvaez, Thoma

& Bebeau, 1999). From the frames of higher education, political science and criminal

justice scholarship, this evaluation may help researchers, administrators, policy makers

and bureaucrats make more informed and effective decisions. This evaluation may serve

social scientists and philosophers in terms of advancing their understanding of the social,

psychological and spiritual development of human beings.

Despite the relevance of this program to so many fields of scholarship, this

researcher could not find any previously published studies concerning the Seminary at

LSP. Searches were conducted through a variety of databases, including Dissertation

Abstracts, ERIC, Professional Development Collection and Academic Search Premier.

7

Searcy (personal communication, June 25, 2005) confirmed no systematic evaluation had

been conducted exclusively for the LSP Seminary program. This program evaluation

stood to fill an important gap in scholarship.

According to the US Department of Justice, program evaluations could be

classified as either process-based, or outcomes-based. A process-based evaluation aids

stakeholders in understanding the program operation for the purpose of replicating the

program. An outcomes-based evaluation is intended to determine whether the program is

meeting its goals (U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994). An outcomes-based program

evaluation model was used for this study.

Primary Research Question

To what extent do students in the NOBTS program at LSP develop moral

judgment consistent with program goals of rehabilitating students and preparing them for

effective ministry?

a. What, if any, statistically significant differences exist in the moral

judgment of freshman, sophomore, junior and senior-level Seminary

students?

b. What, if any, statistically significant relationships exist between the moral

judgment of LSP Seminary students of different personality types?

8

Methodology

Population

During the fall 2005 semester, the LSP Seminary program enrolled 101 students.

Because the population was relatively small and the measurement instruments allowed

groups to be evaluated at reasonable costs, the entire program population was invited to

participate in the study. The DIT and DIT-2 required moderate reading levels (Rest,

Narvaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 2000). Consequently, the use of a control group was

determined to be impractical. Appropriate reading levels could not be assured for any

random group of prisoners outside the college program.

While an attempt was made to include a census of the population, all participants

were informed of their rights, including the right to not participate. Particular care was

taken to practice informed consent consistent with the Common Rule subsection on

research involving prisoners (45 CFR 46, subpart C).

In addition to the involvement of the program population, moral judgment data

were gathered from full-time faculty of NOBTS. The data gathered from the faculty was

used in conjunction with program population data for the purpose of better addressing the

Research Question. Faculty data served as a benchmark for student moral development.

At the time this study began, a census of the 66 full-time faculty members was

planned, with the actual sample to be dictated by voluntary participation with informed

consent. Hurricane Katrina, however, caused the evacuation of the NOBTS main campus.

Most of the faculty who served in administrative roles (e.g., deans) relocated to continue

9

work in Atlanta, GA. The remaining faculty members were dispersed throughout the

country.

As a result of the faculty diaspora, a census of faculty was determined to be

impractical for this evaluation. Consequently, a sample was selected consisting of the 15

administrative faculty members in Atlanta and 15 randomly selected non-administrative

faculty members.

The inclusion of faculty was chosen for three primary reasons. First, the lack of a

control group limited the conclusions that may have be reached from this study. A

benchmark group was not the same as a control group but provided some external

measure. Second, Kohlberg found the moral reasoning of teachers directly impacted the

moral development of students (Bar-Yam, Kohlberg, & Naame, 1980). An evaluation of

faculty moral reasoning served to ascertain what level of moral reasoning was consistent

with the program’s intended outcomes. The third rationale for including faculty followed

from the second rationale. An evaluation of the moral reasoning of faculty, who

presumably represented the highest levels of moral reasoning in Baptist theology, served

as a tool for validating the DIT-2 for this study.

Instrumentation

The Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®

(MBTI®) Form F instrument were administered to participants. The DIT-2 (Rest et al.,

1999) was an updated and shortened version of Rest’s (1979a) Defining Issues Test

(DIT), which was a written assessment based on Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview

10

(MJI) (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs & Liberman, 1983). The DIT had been used for more

than two decades, and researchers had accumulated results for more than 500,000

participants (Rest et al., 1999).

Form F of the MBTI instrument was the longer research version of the instrument

and consisted of 166 items. The Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT),

producer of Form F, authorized that form for external researchers whose research was

related to concurrent CAPT research plans. This researcher contacted CAPT and was

approved to use Form F.

Both the DIT-2 and MBTI measurement tools were based upon extensively

evaluated theories and had been used for assessments within religious communities,

correctional systems and college programs (Good & Cartwright, 1998; Griffore &

Samuels, 1978; King & Mayhew, 2002; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 2003;

Rest, 1986; Rest et al., 1999; Sandhu, 1997/1998; Watt, Frausin, Dixon & Nimmo, 2000;

Young, Cashwell & Woolington, 1998). The DIT-2 was considered especially valuable

for assessing moral development affect in professional educational programs (Rest et al.,

2000).

Reliability and Validity

DIT Reliability and Validity

The evidence for a cognitive theory of moral development was so strong Rest

(1986) believed, “if a person remains skeptical on the point that there are age trends in

11

moral judgment, it is doubtful that any finding in all of social science will be acceptable”

(p. 29, 32). One of the fundamental validity traits in Kohlberg’s theory was that

numerous studies had shown stage-progression is age-related. Similarly, early research of

the DIT supported its ability to measure moral development as a factor of cognitive

maturation. According to Rest (1986), “age/education accounts for 30 to 50 percent of the

variance in DIT scores” (p. 176). So, the general theory of a cognitive basis for moral

development was well supported.

Researchers had found the DIT was sufficiently reliable, with reliability

coefficients usually in the .70s and .80s (Rest et al., 2000). The original version of the

DIT had an internal reliability, using Chronbach’s alpha, of .76, while the shorter DIT-2

increased reliability to .81. Combing the DIT and DIT-2 increased reliability to .90, but

did not yield significantly different results The reliability and validity of the DIT and

DIT-2 were based upon hundreds of thousands of administrations. The DIT and the DIT-

2 correlated extremely well with each other (Rest et al., 1999).

The DIT and DIT-2 include several internal methods for protecting reliability and

validity. For example, DIT score reports include an M score, or Meaningless score.

A number of meaningless but complex-sounding items are interspersed throughout the DIT. If too many of these items receive top ranking by a subject, we infer that the subject is not attending to meaning, and consequently invalidate that subject’s questionnaire. We also have an internal consistency check in the DIT to determine if subjects are randomly responding without attending to any item feature. (Rest, 1986, p. 197) More than 400 studies have been used to validate the DIT in terms of cognitive

measurement, longitudinal consistency, age and educational discrimination, reliability

12

and other measures of professional ethics and social issues. Still, the developers of the

DIT sought to gather more data, especially data pertaining to demographic groups most

salient to the DIT construction and theory. More research was needed into moral

development in professional education and specific moral dilemmas could be devised to

measure the moral concerns within various professions (Rest et al., 1999). Because this

study concerns the professional preparation of clergy, this research provided valuable

contributions to the research literature.

According to Rest (1986), a large percentage of studies involving the DIT used

small sample sizes and have often involved no more than a couple dozen participants

(Rest, 1986). Literature reviewed for this dissertation included numerous studies with

small sample sizes. Many of the studies included fewer participants than the number of

participants who will be invited to participate in this research. Faqua (1983) investigated

moral judgment among 111 Christian college students. Ang (1989) studied 41 Bible

college students. Leeland (1990) studied 12 people in an experimental group and 13

people in a control group. Nelson (2004) used the DIT with a sample of just 56 Bible

college students. Blizard (1980) investigated differences in moral reasoning among

members of various denominations. Blizard’s entire sample was comprised of just 115

church members. Catoe (1992) investigated MBTI and DIT results among 92 college

students. Watt et al. (2000) included only 22 female prisoners as their primary

participants. Finally, another study in a prison population included just 30 participants

(Griffore & Samuels, 1978).

13

Some studies used negligibly larger sample sizes. Washington (1999) used the

DIT with 149 college students. Warren (1992) included 183 Christian college and high

school students, as well as 167 public school students. Hoagland (1984) used a sample

size of 154 in a study comparing conservative Christians with liberal Christians and

nonreligious participants. A study of Catholics who volunteered to teach religion

included 224 participants (Walters, 1980).

This study involved a population of 101 students. The size of the population was

appropriate for the DIT instrument and was expected to yield reliable and valid statistics.

Chapter 2 contains a literature review supporting the theoretical validity of the DIT-2 to

this particular evaluation.

The DIT has been used with Christian populations in numerous studies. Quite

often, Christian populations scored at approximately the national average. Many other

studies have shown Christians to score below average. Christian education programs,

however, have frequently intended to develop the critical thinking skills consistent with

the principled reasoning measured by the DIT-2. The DIT-2 was not a perfect measure of

Christian morality, as it was not designed for Christians, but the DIT-2 did meet the

validity requirements to serve in this dissertation. Further, the DIT was the most

appropriate measure available for this research.

MBTI Reliability and Validity

The MBTI was a time-tested instrument with high reliability and validity. Internal

reliability coefficients for middle-aged adults exceeded .90 for each of the 4 dichotomies.

14

Test-retest reliabilities were lower but still ranged from the low .60s to low .80s. The

psychological nature of the MBTI has caused the instrument to be susceptible to

variations based upon testing conditions. Further, the certainty of type preference

identifications has varied with each person and each dichotomy. The lack of certainty has

caused some individuals to provide different results in test-retest assessments (Myers et

al., 2003).

The validity of MBTI assessments has been evaluated by comparison with other

psychological measures. For example, the MBTI dichotomies have been correlated

modestly with corresponding dynamics of the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire, the

California Psychological Inventory and the Strong Interest Inventory (Myers et al., 2003).

The MBTI instrument, like the DIT-2, has been theoretically based in an

assumption of universal applicability. Further, the MBTI instrument could not be used to

report negative results. No score on an MBTI report could be construed as a bad or poor

score. All personality type preferences were considered healthy aspects of human

personality.

Despite the presumption of all types being equal, there were researchers who

indicated type differences in moral reasoning. These findings actually supported the

validity of both the MBTI and the DIT. Type differences in moral reasoning largely fit

what investigators would have logically concluded based upon type and moral stage

descriptions.

The type differences in moral reasoning bore significance on the interpretation of

results from this study. Prior to the student assessments, the literature supported a

15

hypothesis that Introvert (I), Sensing (S), Feeling (F) and Judging (J) preferences would

be overrepresented among LSP Seminary students. The S, F and J preferences were

predictive of lower moral reasoning scores. The tendency of these types to predict lower

moral reasoning did not negate the use of the DIT for this population. Instead,

understanding these types allowed more valid type-appropriate interpretations of DIT

scores.

Data Collection

Students in the LSP Seminary program received letters inviting them to

participate in this study. The letters provided informed consent and requested their

signatures indicating whether they agreed or did not agree to be a participant. Those

students who agreed to participate were asked to complete the MBTI and DIT-2

instruments in a classroom setting at Angola.

Research involving prisoners was required to meet the requirements of Common

Rule subpart C. To ensure LSP Seminary students did not feel any undue pressure to

participate in this study, those students who attended received informed consent via letter

and verbally from the researcher just prior to assessment. LSP guards were not in the

classroom during the research process.

Each participant received an envelope containing the DIT-2 and the MBTI

instruments. Each envelope was marked with a particular participant’s name. The

instruments, however, were only marked with each student’s unique identification

number created by the researcher for this dissertation. Participants completed the

16

instruments, the DIT-2, the MBTI, and the envelopes were each returned separately to the

researcher. This method ensured the proper documents were provided to each student, but

the documents, once completed, could not be identified with the individual student by

anyone other than the researcher. Once the materials were returned to the researcher, no

other person at Angola was provided access to the materials.

The research involving the full-time faculty at the NOBTS main campus was

conducted in accordance with informed consent. The researcher originally proposed the

Director of Institutional Research at NOBTS would distribute the informed consent

letters, the DIT-2, and return envelopes to the faculty members at a regularly scheduled

faculty meeting. The research plan was changed, however, as a result of Hurricane

Katrina. The researcher delivered the materials to the offices of 15 NOBTS

administrators who held faculty ranks and were working in the temporary NOBTS office

in Atlanta, GA.

Because the New Orleans campus was closed for the fall 2005 semester and the

operation of the Seminary was temporarily relocated to Atlanta, the Atlanta offices

became the main campus. Those 15 faculty members constituted the entire full-time

faculty at the NOBTS main campus. To increase the number of participants and provide

data for faculty members not holding administrative roles, another 15 faculty members

were randomly selected from those dispersed throughout the country. In total, 30 NOBTS

faculty members were invited to participate. The faculty members were requested to

complete the DIT-2 and return the instruments by mail to the researcher.

17

Data Analysis

For Research Question 1a, as to the existence of statistically significant

differences in the moral judgment of freshman, sophomore, junior and senior-level LSP

Seminary students, data were analyzed using the DIT-2 P scores, stage scores and

demographic information. The Center for the Study of Ethical Development provided

DIT-2 results in an SPSS file. ANOVAs were used to investigate differences in

dependent variables, which were the respective DIT-2 scores, and the independent

variable, which was the taxonomy of class-year. Statistical significance was calculated

based upon a probability of Type I error of less than 5%.

For Research Question 1b, concerning statistically significant relationships

between the moral judgment and personality types of LSP Seminary students, data were

analyzed using the results from the DIT-2 and MBTI instruments. Moral judgment was

categorized by P scores. Personality type independent variables included each of the 8

individual dichotomy designations (i.e., I, E, S, N, T, F, J and P), the 16 personality types

(e.g., INTP), the 4 personality temperaments (i.e., SJ, SP, NT and NF) and Richardson’s

(1996) 4 spiritualities (i.e., NF, NT, SF and ST). ANOVAs were used to investigate

differences in the dependent variable, the P score, and the independent variables.

Statistical significance was calculated based upon a probability of Type I error of less

than 5%.

Data analysis for the single Primary Research Question, as to the extent to which

students in the NOBTS program at LSP develop moral judgment consistent with program

goals of rehabilitating students and preparing them for effective ministry, was evaluated

18

with consideration of Research Questions 1a and 1b as well as faculty data. The analysis

was designed to enhance and expand upon the quantitative data from the preceding

Research Questions. The quantitative data found in the faculty DIT-2 results was

synthesized with the findings from previous questions, in an attempt to evaluate the moral

development of students in the LSP Seminary. The response to the Primary Research

Question, therefore, presents the primary purpose of this evaluation of a faith-based

program.

The research literature relevant to this program evaluation was limited in

significant areas of content. Little research was available concerning the moral

development of prisoners or the moral development of seminarians. While questions of

statistical significance could be determined quantitatively, program success had not been

defined quantitatively. Therefore, program success could not be fully understood

quantitatively.

An evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in facilitating moral development

necessitated consideration of initial moral judgment and the moral judgment of exiting

students, as well as the general progress shown across each year of schooling.

Additionally, an evaluation of the moral development of students included the subjective

assessment of growth respective of personality. Finally, a program evaluation

necessitated consideration of what moral judgment was reasonable and appropriate for

this population. The results of faculty evaluations facilitated creating a benchmark for

what moral judgments were consistent with the program goals and Baptist theology.

19

Significance of the Study

There was considerable social and scholarly interest expressed in faith-based

initiatives, correctional rehabilitation and moral development. This study was intended to

contribute to a variety of highly salient issues. In particular, this study may serve to

assist: (a) the Louisiana State Penitentiary and the New Orleans Baptist Theological

Seminary to improve their program through empirical evaluation, (b) local and federal

legislators to make better policy decisions about faith-based, correctional and educational

programs and (c) educators to better understand the moral development of students.

A 2005 Congressional hearing was held to investigate the role of faith-based

initiatives in prison reform, and Angola’s program was a significant topic (“Confronting

recidivism,” 2005). The Seminary model had recently been expanded to the Mississippi

State Penitentiary at Parchman, MS. NOBTS had also been in discussion with the states

of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, each of which had been considering creating seminary

programs in their prisons. Moody Bible Institute of Chicago had also been building on

the NOBTS model and was negotiating with the state of Illinois to begin a college

program in Illinois prisons (“Confronting recidivism,” 2005).

An investigation of this program had the potential to contribute tremendously to

social science and policy. According to Rest (1974), any program that could result in

even modest moral gains among the “extremely problematic” population of prison

inmates would be “spectacular” (p. 250). Unfortunately, moral development research

involving prisoners was quite rare.

20

The need for research-based evidence for education’s impact on prisoner

development provided reason to investigate the effect education has on Angola inmates.

According to Everhart (1992), “education is credited with developing one’s ability to

think to become responsible for individual actions. This last concept is most meaningful

when dealing with criminal offenders. . . (p. 5).

The evaluation of this program was also important for the continuing political and

social discussion of social justice. Faith-based prison reform may be particularly

promising for the black community, which was dramatically overrepresented among the

prison population (“Confronting recidivism,” 2005).

Evidence of program success may be vital for the long-term growth and support

of prison education. The federal government cut funding for college education in prisons

because such funding was deemed a poor use of limited resources. The demonstration of

program success may be important to the government’s future support for faith-based

initiatives. Further, evidence of program success may be a step toward changing the

correctional culture that discourages wardens from pursuing reform.

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance implemented the

Intensive Program Evaluation (IPE) Initiative to gather data on effective efforts to reform

the criminal justice system (U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997). The Department of

Justice expected to use research to help bureaucrats make better decisions about justice

reform. While IPE was specifically charged with gathering and disseminating data

regarding programs funded by federal grants, this program evaluation was relevant to the

IPE agenda.

21

One impediment to prison reform had been the system of evaluating prison

wardens. According to Chaplain Toney, wardens were evaluated based upon the security

at their prisons rather than rehabilitation outcomes. A warden who prevented riots and

violence was considered a good warden regardless of the recidivism of released inmates.

Such a system encouraged wardens to adopt stringent control policies and discouraged

risk-taking, such as the creation of college programs. A college program relinquished

some control of prisoners to the college faculty. Additionally, allowing college faculty

and staff into the prison increased the risk of contraband being smuggled into the prison.

Under the evaluation system, one warden admitted recidivism was not a warden’s

concern. “If that prisoner walked out of prison 1 block and raped and murdered

somebody, that was still OK because they hadn’t done it on his watch” (“Confronting

recidivism,” 2005, p. 125).

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited in several important ways. The DIT-2 was designed to

assess only moral judgment, which was only one aspect of morality (Bebeau, Rest &

Narvaez, 1999). For example, the ability to make moral decisions does not necessarily

predict one will act according to such decisions. Further, as demonstrated in Chapter 2,

there was tremendous debate about what it meant to be moral. The DIT was based in one

particular theoretical system.

This study’s inclusion of the MBTI assessment was an attempt to understand the

affect personality may have had on moral development. Chapter 2 includes research

22

demonstrating the findings from similar research. It should be noted, however, that many

other variables not accounted for in this study may have affected moral development.

Therefore, the results of this study, as all studies, are tentative.

This study was a one-time, cross-sectional study. More research, such as

longitudinal studies, would be beneficial in validating or refining the results of this study.

This evaluation was a beginning evaluation and should serve as an impetus for further

research.

Organization of the Study

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 consists of an

introduction to the study, including the background of the program, purpose of the study,

and research to be conducted. Chapter 2 details a review of literature pertinent to the

study. Literature related to moral judgment, education, personality types and theology

was reviewed. In Chapter 3, the methodology of this study is presented, including the

Research Questions and conducted statistical measures.

Chapter 4 presents the analysis of data and results for each of the Research

Questions. Chapter 5 consists of the conclusions reached based on the present research, a

synthesis of findings from previous research and this study, as well as delineation of

unanswered questions and suggestions for further research.

23

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH

What is Morality?

According to Rest (1986), “The function of morality is. . . optimizing mutual

benefit of people living together in groups” (p. 1). Rest borrowed from Rawls’s (1971)

statement, “It is morality’s special province…to provide guidelines for determining how

the benefits and burdens of cooperative living are to be distributed…” (as cited in Rest,

1986, pp. 1-2). Ethics, which was identified synonymously with morality, consisted of

two subcategories: meta-ethics and normative ethics. Meta-ethics consisted of the

philosophical study of ethics or asking questions about ethics. Normative ethics consisted

of the involvement in ethical conduct or developing policies and principles for ethics

(Singer, 1994).

Throughout history, philosophers have debated what constitutes the moral

decision, how morality may be evaluated, and how morality may be developed among

people. One of the foremost theories of moral development and measurement is that of

Kohlberg (1958). Kohlberg (1982) identified his theory as deontological (e.g., Kantian),

as opposed to teleological (e.g., utilitarian). A deontological ethical system evaluates

morality based on a presupposition that certain truths exist in the moral realm (e.g., lying

is wrong). A teleological system bases moral decisions on a presupposition that the

outcomes are the basis for judgment (Aron, 1977). Kohlberg (1973) traced the

24

development of his own deontological justice orientation through the works of Kant and

Rawls.

Kohlberg was a developmental psychologist and formed his theory from the

scientific, developmental perspective. His system juxtaposed ethical decisions made on

the basis of rules with decisions based upon principles. According to Singer (1994),

ethics includes “values” and “rules” (p. 11). Values allow various choices that fall within

ethical boundaries. Rules are either obeyed or disobeyed. An example of a rule is to not

kill people. An example of a value is charity. Kohlberg (1981) defined the difference as

one of options.

To be honest [is a rule and] means ‘Don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie….’ But justice is not a rule…. It is a moral principle. By a moral principle, I mean a mode of choosing that is universal…that we want all people to adopt in all situations…. There are exceptions to rules, but no exceptions to principles. (p. 39)

Psychology of Morality

Piaget

Piaget was one of the first moral philosophers to work from a scientific

perspective. In interviewing children about justice, Piaget (1965) found responses fit into

four categories: “Behavior that goes against commands received from the adult….

Behavior that goes against the rules of the game…. Behavior that goes against

equality…. Acts of injustice connected with adult society (economic or political

injustice)” (pp. 313-314).

25

According to Piaget (1965), these four categories create stages of progression

from infancy through adolescence. The fourth stage moves beyond simple concepts of

equality of outcomes into the concepts of “equity.” “In the domain of distributive justice

it means no longer thinking of a law as identical for all but taking account of the personal

circumstances of each [individual]” (p. 317). “The motto ‘Do as you would be done by,’

thus comes to replace the conception of crude equality. The child sets forgiveness above

revenge, not out of weakness, but because ‘there is no end’ to revenge…” (p. 323).

Piaget’s (1965) groundbreaking work on the physical, social and psychological

development of children became a foundation for developmental theories, such as

Kohlberg’s. Piaget developed a theory that children progress linearly through four stages

of maturation. Moral development, in particular, was a progressive understanding of

justice. The first two stages occur in early childhood, until about the age of 7 or 8, at

which time stage 3 begins. Stage 4 begins in adolescence.

Kohlberg

Kohlberg (1966) used interviews of boys to further develop Piaget’s theory. In

Kohlberg’s theory, people progressed through three major steps, with each step including

two stages, for a total of six stages. He named the first step preconventional, or premoral.

The second step was the conventional stage. The final step was postconventional. Each

step involved a deeper and broader understanding of moral decision-making.

In various works, Kohlberg defined his theories through different contexts. For

example, Kohlberg (1973) once used the concept of personal rights to define each moral

26

stage. In another work, Kohlberg’s (1981) moral theory was defined through the rationale

a person gives for respecting the human rights of other people. In small children, at stage

1, people had no value for the rights of others. Very young children understood that some

people were able to make claims on other people because of strength. The stronger

person could control the weaker person. Power defined all relationships.

As toddlers, people began to learn forms of manipulation. In stage 2, other people

were seen as objects to be used for personal gain. Toddlers did not necessarily understand

the personal needs and desires of parents. What the toddler understood was that certain

actions can cause the parents to behave in particular ways (Kohlberg, 1981).

Stage 3 began in middle childhood at a time when social relationships were

paramount. Human rights, therefore, became an issue of maintaining close social

relationships. Children did not want to hurt other people because such actions cause pain,

embarrassment and isolation. Most adults could be classified as either stage 3 or stage 4

(Kohlberg, 1981).

People in stage 4 have moved beyond merely thinking only of individual

relationships and have begun making moral decisions with consideration toward society,

as a whole. According to Kohlberg (1981), for the stage 4 thinker, “life is conceived as

sacred in terms of its place in a categorical moral or religious order of rights and duties”

(pp. 19-20). Kohlberg’s stage 4 included moral decisions made through the confines of

any system of social order, whether government law, or religious law. The key to this

level was the subjection of individuals to the established order.

27

Kohberg (1981) and Kohlberg and Ryncarz (1990), considered most Christians to

exist at stage 4, and in fact, considered Christianity to be a stage 4 system. To describe

human life as valuable because people are created in God’s image was stage 4 thinking

because the value relies on an external legitimacy. Even though such a view was

universal, the reliance on God’s decree made the philosophy a law and order philosophy

(Kohlberg, 1981).

The postconventional stages included stages 5 and 6. These stages were abstract

in nature, and most adults were not abstract moral thinkers. In stage 5, “life is valued both

in terms of its relation to community welfare and in terms of life being a universal human

right.” Stage 5 moral philosophies included social contract theories and utilitarianism. In

stage 6, “human life is sacred—a universal human value of respect for the individual”

(Kohlberg, 1981, pp. 19-20).

Stage 5 was abstract in its definition of universal human rights. Like stage 4, the

value of humanity was somewhat arbitrary. Laws were different from one country to

another. Therefore, stage 4 was based on an arbitrary value. Social contracts differ across

time and place, and utilitarian ethics differ with each situation. The universal aspect of

stage 5 rested in the determination that social contracts and utilitarianism were impartial

systems. Under a social contract, laws were applied to everyone equally (Locke,

2000/1690). In a utilitarian system, each person’s worth was no greater or less than any

other person’s worth (Mill, 2002/1861).

Kohlberg believed stage 6 was the highest level of moral development. In stage 6

thinking, “the worth of the individual human being is central where the principles of

28

justice and love are normative for all human relationships…. Stage 6 people answer in

moral words such as duty and morally right and use them in a way implying universality,

ideals and impersonality” (Kohlberg, 1981, p. 22). In other words, stage 6 thinkers had

moved beyond the self-centered concerns of children, the social order focus of the

legalists, and the arbitrary decisions of social contract theorists and utilitarians. The stage

6 thinker had expanded the universal aspects of stage 5 from universal within current

society to universal across time and place. The stage 6 thinker was committed to

universal application of principles.

The scientific approach Kohlberg (1981) used to assess moral development was

based largely on Piaget. His work was not solely based in biological development,

however. He was significantly influenced by philosophical thinkers, such as Socrates,

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Rawls, and Dewey. It was through such philosophy that Kohlberg

came to focus his research and his theory on the concept of justice. “I cannot define

moral virtue at the individual level, [so] I have tried it at the social level and found it to

be justice…” (p. 39).

Kohlberg’s (1958) theory was developed from interviews he conducted for his

doctoral dissertation. He eventually developed the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI),

which was a structured interview, conducted by trained interviewers (Colby et al., 1983).

Each participant was asked a series of moral dilemmas, such as the famous Heinz

dilemma. The Heinz dilemma asked what action a man should take when his wife is

dying of a curable disease, but the man cannot afford the medicine.

29

The responses participants provided for moral dilemma questions were scored by

comparing them to the types of responses characteristic of each moral stage. The MJI

required significant time by researchers. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.

Additional time was required for interpretation (Colby et al., 1983; Kohlberg, 1981).

The Defining Issues Test was development by Rest (1979a) as an adequate

substitute for the MJI because the resource requirements of the MJI were so significant.

While the DIT was initially intended to be an adequate substitute for the MJI, Rest and

his colleagues refined the DIT and its theoretical basis to the point where they deemed

the DIT to be superior the MJI (Bebeau & Thoma., 1999 May; Narvaez, Bebeau, Thoma,

& Rest, 1999; Rest et al., 2000; Rest et al., 1999).

Philosophy of Morality

Kant

Many moral philosophers would divide the world into the time before Kant, and

the time since Kant (Ferre, 1951). Kant’s system of ethics (1994b) was a major work of

the Rationalist era. He based his work on presuppositions of human rationality,

impartiality and goodness. The philosophy that dominated Western liberalism before

Kant was natural law theory. Kant differed from the natural law theorists in that he

believed in an innate goodness of people, which allows people to independently pursue

and reach the truth (Schneewind, 1992).

30

Kant’s view of society was influenced by Rousseau’s (1988/1762) social contract

theory, in which independent people willingly surrender some freedom to enter into a

society that promotes justice through unanimously agreed upon obligations (Schneewind,

1992). Kant further developed Rousseau’s theory by claiming the social contract would

be based on universal principles of justice, not the majority opinion.

“Categorical imperatives” were to form the basis for universal ethical laws,

according to Kant (1994b). Categorical imperatives were those obligations rational

people would want to be universally applied. “Act only according to that maxim by

which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,” Kant wrote

(p. 274). According to Kant, those who would consider suicide or living off welfare

should consider the ramification if everyone committed suicide or became social

parasites. Neither choice is ethical since it stands to reason universal application of such

choices would lead to society’s destruction.

Honesty was a moral obligation, according to Kant (1994b). If telling the truth

results in another person’s harm, the speaker has no fault, for he or she merely conveyed

the truth. Kant used the example of a murderer who asks for information concerning his

victim. Providing information does not necessarily involve the speaker in the crime. A

speaker who lies, however, bears criminal culpability for any resulting harm, even if the

lie was told with sincere intentions of protecting the victim. “To be truthful (honest) in all

declaration, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited

by no expediency” (Kant, 1994a, p. 281). Kohlberg’s (1981) claim there are “no

31

exceptions to principles” was an echo of Kant’s statement the principle of truth is

“limited by no expediency.”

A “practical imperative,” in addition to the categorical imperative, was argued for

by Kant (1994b). “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that

of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (p. 279). This view was similar

to the Golden Rule (Kohlberg, 1982). The moral foundation for both Kant and Kohlberg

was a principled belief that humans have innate worth.

In Kantian ethics, moral action is inspired by one’s own rational morality, without

regard to external rewards or punishments (Schneewind, 1992). According to Kant

(1994b), any act motivated by hope of a reward fails to be moral because of its selfish

motive. Ferre (1951), however, contends Kant, and numerous subsequent ethicists, have

defined morality and justice too narrowly. While narrow definition of a field is required

for modern academic scholarship, the practical effect is that ethicists have ignored the

contributions of the other fields offering insight into their work. Kant’s views on reward,

for example, have no place for many insights of behavioral and social psychology.

Kant considered religious faith to be important to moral development, but he

conceived of religion in a transcendental and agnostic fashion. Kant insisted he, himself,

was religious and that religion was indispensable to society. His religion, however, was

similar to his politics. Both religion and politics, in Kant’s mind, were constructs

intended to foster individual development. Because development could only come

through reason, both institutions were to be ultimately focused on reason (Wood, 1992).

32

The philosophy of Kant was based in human rationalism and personal autonomy.

Kant viewed acceptance of the divine will to be “heteronomy,” not autonomy

(Schneewind, 1992, p. 316). Heteronomy was an individual’s subjection of his or her

own reason to externally created judgments. Autonomy was to use one’s own reason for

making judgments.

An individual’s obligation to others is a central feature of Kant’s philosophy.

Kant viewed charity as, at best, a necessary evil. He thought anyone who depended on

charity was a slave to the good will of the charitable giver. For this reason, Kant viewed

the concept of obligation as superior to charity. Only when one could demand specific

action from others could one be free from the whims of others (Schneewind, 1992). This

view is in significant contrast to the Christian theology of charity as a social good.

Mutual obligation, in which one person may demand something from another, is not a

significant feature of Christian theology. One may feel obligation to provide care to

another, but not necessarily to demand care be given by another person for one’s self.

As Singer (1994) noted:

Kant’s assertion that the moral law is a law of reason was based on his own peculiar metaphysics. He saw human nature as eternally divided. On one side is our natural or physical self, trapped in the world of desires. On the other is our intellectual or spiritual self, which partakes of the world of reason from which the moral law derives. (p. 8)

Rawls

Kohlberg (1973) argued Rawls’s theory of justice was more articulate and

developed than even that of Kant, and was quite superior to social contract theories.

33

Rawls (1957) was concerned with justice in institutions and not justice as individual

moral action. That macro focus was similar to Kohlberg’s assertion that he could not

define individual moral action, but concluded justice is the hallmark of the moral system.

The theory of justice proposed by Rawls (1957) began on the premise all citizens

were entitled to the maximum freedom that did not hinder the freedom of others, and any

limitations on freedom must have had a utilitarian effect of maximizing the common

good. Justice was defined in a legal sense. “Justice is the elimination of arbitrary

distinctions and the establishment…of a proper balance between competing claims (p.

653).

Individual freedom was viewed by Rawls (1971) as always the servant of the

social structure. Whereas a libertarian viewed a worker’s wages as the private contract

between worker and employer, Rawls viewed wages as a systematic tool of social

engineering. “An inequality [of pay] is allowed only if there is reason to believe that the

practice with the inequality will work to the advantage of every party” (p. 654).

As a 20th century liberal, Rawls (1957) viewed equality and freedom in economic

terms. He assumed any group creating a society would be a collection of rent-seeking

factions, each trying to establish their own benefit. The result would be a moral,

socialized system, in which equality is artificially created.

Kohlberg (1973) specifically identified Rawls’s (1971) model of justice as the

epitome of moral reasoning. Kohlberg made the caveat, however, that Rawls’s social

model was not necessarily the only social model, because principles can be applied in

34

different manners. Still, Kohlberg considered Rawls’s theory of justice to be the most

clearly and uniformly stage 6 moral system.

Rawls (1971) outlined one of the most significant rationales for modern liberal

political theory. Under his system, social systems were to be evaluated through concepts

of a veil of ignorance and a view from what he called the original position. His theory

asked evaluators to imagine being placed in the original position, which is a pre-mortal

state. Evaluators were given a certain amount of knowledge about societies; the

knowledge, however, was limited by the veil of ignorance. The evaluators were told

facts, such as the range of incomes within each society. The evaluators were not told,

however, the percentiles of income distributions.

From the limited vantage point of the original position, the evaluators were to

choose the society in which they would like to be born. The evaluators would not know

whether they would be born rich or poor, male or female, healthy or sick, etc. Rawls’s

presumption was that people will assume the vantage point of the lowliest people in

society, because they assume a significant chance exists they will be born in the worst

circumstances. Such evaluators would choose the society that offers the most justice (i.e.,

security) for the meek. In other words, a socialized nation would be preferable to a more

merit-oriented society.

Kohlberg (1973) believed a great quality of Rawls’s original position/veil of

ignorance was its applicability to both macro and micro-morality. He believed the system

could be used to solve personal problems such as real life dilemmas as well as social

issues such as social construction. One could use the system to decide whether to

35

personally give to charity, and whether to vote for universal healthcare, by asking the

same question. The question to ask was what decision would make one more likely to

choose that society from the vantage point of the original position.

A common criticism of Rawls’s theory was the requirement that certain

knowledge be available, while other knowledge was denied, to the decision maker.

Kohlberg (1973) conceded the veil of ignorance required ignorance of certain

probabilities, while requiring knowledge of other probabilities. He considered the ignored

probabilities to be “morally irrelevant,” however (p. 644). In fact, Kohlberg (1973)

contended the selectively available information actually precludes non-moral issues, such

as self-interest, from entering into the decision. It is the intentionally limited information,

Kohlberg (1973) believed, that forced the issue to be entirely based on moral judgment.

Kohlberg

Justice was the epitome of moral reasoning, according to Kohlberg (1981). His

early work was based largely on the philosophical work of Kant and Rawls (Kohlberg &

Power, 1981). Kohlberg (1981) noted empirical studies were unable to identify stage 6

thinkers. Kohlberg’s progressive model of stages 1 through 5 was developed by analysis

of interviews. His stage 6 conception, however, was a theoretical derivative of liberal

philosophy.

The development of justice reasoning was vital to the creation of a morally

sufficient humanity, Kohlberg (1981) contended. Conventional reasoning was what led so

36

many Nazis to engage in horrendous acts. The Nazi excuse of following orders is a stage

4 rationale, which appeals to law (Kohlberg, 1966).

Religion was placed in stage 4 by Kohlberg (1966). His example of stage 4

religious rationalizing was an interviewee who said, “The doctor wouldn’t have the right

to take life, no human has the right. He can’t create life, he shouldn’t destroy it.” Yet,

Kohlberg also allowed a transcendent religiosity in stage 6.

By the law of society [the husband] was wrong but by the law of nature or of God the druggist was wrong and the husband was justified. Human life is above financial gain. Regardless of who was dying, if it was a total stranger, man has a duty to save him from dying. (p. 9)

So, while Kohlberg generally placed any appeal to religious law as stage 4 reasoning,

such appeals could be stage 6 if they appealed to universal principles. To say, “God

requires” was stage 4. To say, “justice requires” was stage 6. “Thus saith the Lord” was

stage 4, while “Thus saith wisdom” was stage 6. Kohlberg’s interview format hinged on

such semantics.

Stage 6 thinking was “to learn to make decisions of principle; it is to learn to use

‘ought’ sentences verified by reference to a standard or set of principles which we have

by our own decision accepted and made our own” (Kohlberg, 1966 p. 22).

Principled Reasoning

Kohlberg (1973), in part, validated his theory by noting that every philosopher

interviewed in his research reasoned at either stage 5 or stage 6, which are known as the

post-conventional, or principled stages. He contended stage 6 is more developed, but he

37

did not adequately explain why many philosophers, educated in Kantian ethics, still chose

stage 5. Aron (1977) noted that many of the most significant philosophies (e.g., social

contract theory and utilitarianism) are more linked to stage 5 thinking than stage 6

thinking. Baier (1973), likewise, believed Kohlberg had failed to adequately differentiate

stages 5 and 6. Kohlberg (1982) admitted, himself, to significant difficulty in definitively

differentiating stages 5 and 6.

The concept of reversibility came to be the keystone of stage 6 thinking

(Kohlberg, 1973). Reversibility exists when an actor would make the same decision if he

or she were in the original position, a state in which the actor knows he or she will be in

the situation, but not at which social post. For example, in Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma

(Colby et al., 1983), an actor in the original position would know he or she would end up

being Heinz, the wife or the druggist, but not know in which position he or she would be

placed. In such an original state, under the veil of ignorance, the moral decision would be

made because the actor would choose the decision best for the least benefited member of

the group. Reversibility is the foundation of Rawlsian justice (1971) because in Rawls’s

system, a just outcome is that in which any member of society could be placed in the least

benefited position and not feel mistreated.

Reversibility is seen as differentiating stage 6 from stage 5 because Kohlberg

concluded many stage 5 theories (e.g., social contract) do not meet the standards of

reversibility. For example, Adam Smith’s (2003/1776) capitalism postulates universal

principles of property rights. Smith believed property rights are universal principles and

not based upon an arbitrary social contract. Smith’s philosophy fails the stage 6 test of

38

reversibility, however. From an original position, many people would not choose a

system that places them at the mercy of their own productivity. The 20th century move

toward socialism was evidence of the irreversibility of capitalism. Again, Kohlberg

(1981) and Rawls (1971) treated economic justice (i.e., security) as a keystone of socio-

moral principles.

In stages 5 and 6, rights are common to all people, at least within the society, and

each member of society is expected to defend the rights of all others. A difference

between stages 5 and 6, however, is that in stage 5, rights are usually only those

acknowledged by the social contract, while in stage 6, rights are universal and impose

demands regardless of social acknowledgment (Kohlberg, 1973).

Kohlberg and Religion

According to Kohlberg (1982), the Christian concept of “Love your neighbor”

was just as legalistic as “Do not kill” and “Do not steal.” He classified all three biblical

standards as moral rules. In contrast, Kohlberg stated the biblical standard of “the golden

rule” was as principled as Kantian and Rawlsian ethics. In Kohlberg’s view, the

distinction was that rules prescribed “actions,” whereas principles provided “a method for

making a choice” (p. 520).

Like Kant, Kohlberg (1981) treated religion as a social construct, which required

the presupposition that religion was not true. Religion, then, was an arbitrary force of

social formation; religion was an aspect of culture, like dress, language, and cuisine. This

view led Kohlberg to the unavoidable claim that religion was independent of moral

39

development. He frequently referred to literature supporting his claim. In his later work,

however, he came to include religion as a feature of moral development; still, he never

came to view religion as more than supportive of morality (Kohlberg & Power, 1981). In

fact, Kohlberg (1981) explicitly claimed religious education was almost worthless for

moral development.

Alternative Views

The moral development model of Kohlberg was frequently criticized from a

variety of perspectives. Some researches, such as Gilligan (1993), contested the

interpretation of Kohlberg’s research. Other writers, such as Bennett (1995), contested

the philosophical bases for his theory.

Flanagan and Jackson (1987) criticized Kohlberg’s theory as being too narrowly

focused on the singular concept of justice. Some scholars (Miller & Bersoff, 1992;

Snarey, 1985) criticized Kohlberg’s theory as being exclusive to liberal, Western

concepts of individuality and justice. Joy (1986) criticized Kohlberg’s notion of justice as

too narrowly defined. While Kohlberg claimed to base his research in Piaget’s concept of

moral justice, Joy believed Piaget’s justice was broader and more aligned with Judeo-

Christian justice. Kohlberg was led, according to Joy, by “his own political biases…into

obvious distortion of ‘what is moral’” (p. 406).

Moral development was viewed by Hogan (1973) as a combination of social

relationships and personal autonomy. During the course of his career, Kohlberg slowly

evolved to allow more influence from culture and society. His early work was so based in

40

Kantian ethics that any reference to a social norm was considered conventional thinking

(Kohlberg, 1967). His later work still emphasized individual autonomy, but began to

allow that some moral principles could be influenced, or at least encouraged, by social

morals (Kohlberg & Powers, 1981).

Kohlberg’s inconsistency across time was a criticism of Reed (1997). According

to Reed, Kohlberg’s theory was based on a rationalist concept of self-created ethics.

Kohlberg’s Just Community pedagogy, however, relied on socially and democratically

created ethics, as well as social norms and pressures to encourage adherence to principled

morality.

The community, according to Kohlberg (Kohlberg & Powers, 1981), was an agent

for supporting or inhibiting moral principles, rather than teaching moral principles. It was

the supportive function, rather than instructive function, of the community Kohlberg

(1981) insisted prevented moral judgment from being externally oriented. For many

scholars, such as Reed (1997), the distinction was a semantic argument with little

practical significance.

One of the most influential critics of Kohlberg was Gilligan. She argued

Kohlberg’s justice ethic was too narrowly focused and biased against care, which she

contended, was the dominant ethic for women (1993/1982; Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988).

Rest (1986), however, claimed Gilligan’s work was unsupported by the vast majority of

research. According to Rest:

[Gilligan] did not actually do a systematic review of the moral judgment literature on sex differences before making the bold statement that justice-oriented scoring systems downgrade women…. Systematic reviews are now available….and the

41

results are unambiguous: it is a myth that males score higher on Kohlberg’s test than females (p. 112)

Researchers using the DIT have also failed to replicate Gilligan’s claim (Aronovitz,

1984; Denny, 1988; Taylor, 1992; Wahrman, 1980; Watt et al., 2000; Wright, 2001;).

The evidence for the gender neutrality and other aspects of validity of the Kohlberg

model is evaluated later in this chapter.

Gilligan proposed care and justice orientations were not overarching moral

frameworks. Rest (1986), however, asserted Gilligan’s modified theory lacked support.

“Although the care orientation is said to be an alternative and parallel path of moral

development, there is not one longitudinal study or any cross-sectional data to support

that claim” (p. 117).

Despite growing evidence against Gilligan’s work, she was influential in the field

of moral development theory. Kohlberg (1982) admitted Gilligan’s work was a useful

hypothesis, especially in its early phases, and helped him refine his own interpretations of

interviews. In the long-term, however, Gilligan’s work was not validated.

In general, researchers found no gender differences on Kohlberg’s moral

dilemmas. Women, however, were more likely to use care orientations when responding

to a dilemma concerning surrogate parents. The emphasis on care among women was

even greater among women in prison (Watt et al., 2000). This might have been an

indication the care orientation was a lesser rationale and surfaced more when dilemmas

elicited affective bias.

42

A pragmatic criticism of Kohlberg’s stage 6 was offered by Henson (1973). The

Kantian assertion that obligation is greater than charity is an integral part of stage 6.

Hogan believed the moral claims of stage 6 reasoning were ill-defined because Kohlberg

did not establish how one could determine which claims of a person were justifiably

binding on others and which claims were ignorable self-interests.

Kohlberg’s theory was criticized by Clouse (1985) who argued the conventional

reasoning of stage 4 thinkers could actually be a healthy for society in balancing the

change orientation and social upheaval of liberals. Clouse’s work specifically addressed

the Kohlberg’s (1966) frequent assertion conservatives, whether religious or political,

were less moral than liberals and posed the danger of Nazism.

Much of the debate concerning moral reasoning was a matter of defining what it

meant to be moral and what caused or inhibited moral development. Early Greek

philosophers, such as Aristotle and Socrates, disagreed with each other; Kant disagreed

with the natural law theorists. There was no consensus in moral philosophy and the

historical development of moral philosophy was rich and contentious.

Fowler

Fowler worked in conjunction with Kohlberg, but he conducted his research with

a focus on the development of religious faith. Fowler believed faith was a prerequisite for

stage 6 thinking because people needed some source for idealizing. According to Fowler,

Kant and Kohlberg appealed to faith in their own abilities, whereas Christians appealed to

faith in their theology (Wallwork, 1980). Wallwork, however, did not like Fowler’s broad

43

definition of faith because it allowed for almost any belief not based in objective science

to be faith.

Fowler modified Kohlberg’s theory, based on the insistence morality and religion

were incongruent, to combine religious faith development and moral development into

parallel constructs (Wallwork, 1980). Fowler defined principled faith as deriving

authority from “reflective” thought (Kohlberg & Power, 1981, p. 334).

Kohlberg generally viewed Christianity to be a blind, obedient faith. Hoge et al.

(1982), however, claimed Baptists emphasize reflective thinking about their theology.

Baptist theology, then, is consistent with the development of mature faith, and hence

mature moral judgment. Grimley (1991) argued Kohlberg’s stage 6 is contingent upon a

developed religious belief. Further, Grimley found a relatively strong correlation of 0.75

between stage development in the DIT and Fowler’s stages of faith development.

Other Research Instruments

Although this literature review focused on the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a

review of other measurement instruments was conducted. There were numerous

instruments available. The DIT was the most common, however, and was determined to

be most appropriate for this research.

The Moral Justification Scale (MJS) was a paper and pencil test structured

similarly to the DIT. The MJS, however, was designed to categorize participants

according to justice or care moral orientations (Gump, Baker & Roll, 2000). As discussed

earlier, the care framework was useful as a supplemental consideration, but was not

44

supported as an overarching theory. As an instrument, the MJS has a mediocre reliability

of .64 on the justice orientation and .75 on the care orientation (Gump et al., 2000).

Reliability of the MJS was considerably lower than the DIT (Rest et al., 2000).

An excellent collection of instruments, and analyses of their uses, reliability and

validity, may be found in Hill and Hood’s Measures of religiosity (1999). Their

collection included instruments for a variety of religious issues, such as faith, morality,

commitment, and fundamentalism. Most instruments, particularly those of moral

reasoning, have low reliability, in comparison to the DIT, and were not determined to

have validity for this study.

Defining Issues Test

About the Defining Issues Test

The Defining Issues Test (DIT) was created by Rest as a substitute for the Moral

Judgment Interview (MJI). The DIT was a written test presenting six moral dilemmas.

Participants read each dilemma and then read twelve rationales for how to respond to the

dilemma. The participant was asked to evaluate the relevance of each rationale and

choose which rationales were most relevant. The various rationales were designed to

represent varying stages of moral judgment. The DIT had several inherent and obvious

advantages over the MJI. The advantages include the ability to evaluate more

participants, increased reliability across evaluations, and reduced costs (Rest et al., 1999).

45

The test was a paper-and-pencil test, which meant it could be administered to

groups of people at one time. The MJI, on the other hand, required individual interviews

with each participant. The administration of the DIT allows the evaluation of much larger

samples (Rest et al., 1999).

The MJI required interviewers to be trained for the structured interview.

Additionally, significant training was required for the evaluation and scoring of interview

data. Every response given by a participant required evaluation for its fit with the moral

stages. While the structure of the MJI allowed reasonable inter-rater reliability, the

evaluations were still subject to human error. The DIT, on the other hand, was objectively

scored. DITs could be scored via a scoring rubric or computer scored by the Center for

the Study of Ethical Development, publisher of the DIT (Rest et al., 1999).

Substantial cost benefits were available to researchers using the DIT compared

with those researchers using the MJI. The ability to administer to larger samples, and do

so quickly, as well as score the results quickly, saved time and money. Evaluations of

large programs could be conducted with much greater efficiency using the DIT (Rest et

al., 1999).

After more than two decades in use, the DIT was recently revised. The new

instrument was known as the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2). The new instrument was

shortened to include only five dilemmas. Dilemmas were updated as needed.

Additionally, a new statistic was created for the DIT-2 (Rest et al., 1999).

46

Four-Component Model

The theoretical basis for the DIT involved the Four-Component Model (Narvaez

et al., 1999; Rest et al., 2000). The Four-Component Model divided morality into four

categories: moral attention, moral judgment, moral motivation and moral virtue. Moral

attention was the ability to recognize moral situations. A sociopath, for example, lacks

moral attention. Moral judgment was the ability to choose the moral action that should be

taken by an actor. Moral motivation was the internal desire to act according to moral

standards. Finally, moral virtue was the personal determination to act morally, even when

it would be most convenient to act immorally.

The DIT was designed to measure moral judgment, the second of the four

components. Moral judgment requires moral attention, the first component. When

someone is faced with a moral dilemma, such as provided in the MJI or the DIT, that

person must recognize the moral features of the dilemma in order to provide a moral

judgment. The DIT’s focus on component two meant its results do not fully indicate a

person’s morality. For example, the DIT was not intended to predict what a person would

do in a situation. The DIT merely measured what a person thought should be done in that

situation (Rest, 1986). The DIT’s construction was aligned with Kohlberg’s view that

moral judgment is a matter of what one ‘ought’ to do in the situation.

Rest and Moral Theory

Rest substantially refined Kohlberg’s moral development theory, creating what he

called the neo-Kohlbergian model. One change in the neo-Kohlbergian model was

47

Kohlberg’s stages were refined into schemas. Specifically, Kohlberg’s stage model was

based on the insistence that every individual exists in a particular stage. Evolution from

one stage to another was a punctuated action in which a person clearly changed from the

lower stage to the higher stage. Like Kohlberg’s stages, Rest’s schemas followed the

progressive, developmental pattern, and were also based on developmental psychology.

Rest’s schemas, however, allowed a more gradual transition across the range of moral

development. In the newer model, the schemas were as follows: (a) Personal Interest

(labeled S23), which correlates to Kohlberg’s stages 2 and 3; (b) Maintaining Norms

(S4), which correlates to stage 4; and (c) Postconventional (S56), which correlated to

stages 5 and 6 (Narvaez et al., 1999; Rest, 1986).

The Four-Component Model was created by Rest (1986) to describe the process

of moral action. The model consists of (a) rational decision-making, (b) moral evaluation,

(c) moral choice, and (d) moral fortitude. According to Rest, this model was based upon

“processes” and not “virtues” or personal “traits” (p. 5). Additionally, the cognitive

process involved interplay of the components rather than stage procession.

The DIT is based on the premise that people at different points of development interpret moral dilemmas differently, and have different intuitions about what is right and fair in a situation…. These [intuitions] are not necessarily apparent to a subject as articulative rule systems or verbalizable philosophies—rather, they may work ‘behind the scenes’ and may seem to a subject as just commonsensical and intuitively obvious. (Rest, 1986, p. 196) The behind the scenes function of the moral schemas was considerably different

than Kohlberg’s theory. In the MJI, interviewees were only scored according to the level

they could clearly explain. It was not enough for an interviewee to say Heinz should do

48

some action. The interviewee must also have explained why that action was the moral

choice. The expository requirement of the MJI required individuals to have a firmly

established moral system in their own minds. The DIT, however, asked respondents to

choose the most moral action. Respondents did not need to explain why that action was

moral (Narvaez et al., 1999).

Respondents often scored higher on the DIT than the MJI. According to Rest

(1986), the format of the instrument caused the difference in the scores. “Since subjects

usually find recognition tasks (like the DIT) easier than production tasks (like the

Kohlberg task), it is not too surprising that the DIT credits subjects with more advanced

thinking than does the Kohlberg test” (Rest, 1986, p. 197). The DIT, in this view, was

more valid in measuring moral judgment, because it was measuring cognition rather than

verbalization.

The basic philosophical foundation for Rest’s theory was very similar to

Kohlberg’s philosophy. According to Rest (1986), a concept of “fairness” was inherent in

the mental paradigms of individuals, although the definition of fairness was relative to the

individual’s level of cognitive moral development (p. 10). For example, in stage 2, Rest

(1986) described fairness as, “direct exchange of favor for favor” (p. 10). Stage 3 entailed

a fairness of “maintaining positive, long-term relationships…that I know I can count on

you and that you can count on me….” (p. 10). Fairness in stage 4 was defined in terms of

the solidarity of the greater society which relied on the general willingness of people to

submit to the law.

49

Individuals automatically used their personal definition of fairness when making

moral choices. Rest (1986) used the Heinz dilemma to illustrate the interaction of

“fairness” in moral decision-making. According to Rest, someone at stage 4 would

consider the possibility of Heinz stealing in terms of what social consequences might

result from theft. A person at stage 4 might ask what would happen if everyone chose to

steal when they were in need. The stage 4 thinker might conclude that while Heinz’s wife

should not needlessly die, rampant theft could damage society.

One variation Rest (1986) made to Kohlberg’s theory was an allowance for

greater social construction of moral principles. While Kohlberg gradually incorporated

greater acceptance of social power, such as the Just Community pedagogy, his foundation

in Kant always made him leery of groupthink. Kohlberg had referenced the Nazis as an

example of the danger in following society.

Rest disagreed with Kohlberg’s comparison of law and order with Nazi

culpability. Rest believed the key to developmentally valuable social norms was a society

open to discussion and the free exchange of ideas. Rest wrote:

Morality that is relative to group deliberation is not tantamount to the mindless moral relativism or moral skepticism that Kohlberg feared, nor does it pave the way to Nazi atrocities. Common morality might be different for different communities (and therefore relative), but the common morality is debated and scrutinized by members of the community and reflects an equilibrium between the ideals and the moral intrusions of the community. (Rest et al., 2000, p. 385)

Morally productive societies do not merely prescribe law, but debate law and evolve law.

The theoretical foundation of Rest’s theory and the DIT were validated by researchers

who have investigated correlations between P scores and corresponding social principles.

50

If the DIT accurately measured one’s understanding of abstract human values, such as the

rights to life, free expression and liberty, then the DIT should correlate reasonably well

with instruments that specifically measure attitudes toward those issues.

Getz (1985) found participants with high levels of principled moral reasoning

were moral likely to score high on a measure of support for controversial human rights

issues, lending support for the idea that moral reasoning scores indicate a factor in one’s

social thought. Similarly, Blizard (1980) found a significant relationship between moral

reasoning (DIT) and one’s commitment to humanitarianism.

DIT and Colleges Students

The DIT has been used in thousands of studies involving college students.

According to Rest’s (1986) review of education program evaluation literature, “the

overall power of moral education programs taken together without regard to type of

program is statistically significant, but is, according to Cohen, in the small range” (p. 79).

In that analysis, Rest considered programs that were specifically aimed at moral

development and measured using the DIT. Consequently, his programs were all one

semester or less, usually much less, in length. Rest focused his review on such short

programs to provide a reasonable limit to his research.

The program being evaluated in this dissertation was an entire college curriculum.

Rest (1986) described four general types of educational programs evaluated for moral

judgment effect They are (a) “moral dilemma” discussions, (b) “personality

development,” (c) traditional academic programs not directly teaching moral judgment,

51

and (d) “short-term” programs (p. 80). Rest (1986) found moral dilemma and personality

development programs analyzed using this method yielded small effect sizes, while

academic and short-term programs had no effect. Because Rest (1986) focused on

literature concerning targeted moral education programs, he limited his review of

literature regarding entire four-year college programs. There was a plethora of literature

available, however, on college evaluations using the DIT. Some of that research was

briefly addressed by Rest (1986).

Educational program literature was evaluated by Rest (1986) who found college

students generally showed small gains (average effect size of .28) from moral

development programs. In one study of a two year nursing program, students did not

show any advance in moral reasoning (Aronovitz, 1984). One excellent literature review

concerning the DIT and college education, overall, was conducted by Pascarella and

Terenzini (1991). They concluded college programs were substantially related to

increases in levels of moral reasoning. Overall, education accounted for approximately

half of the variance in moral judgment scores (Bebeau et al.; 1999; Pascarella &

Terenzini, 1991; Rest, 1986).

DIT and Christians

The program evaluated in this dissertation was a distinctively Christian college

program. The DIT has been used extensively for studies of Christian populations, in both

educational and noneducational contexts. While the DIT was generally accepted as a

valid instrument for moral evaluation in secular settings, there were some researchers

52

who doubted its validity for Christian populations. In Chapter 3, the validity of the DIT

for this program is elaborated in detail. This section provides a general review of

literature concerning Christians.

Religion was irrelevant to moral development, according to Kohlberg (1981). In

fact, he claimed his theory was universally applicable to all populations. A number of

critics, however, questioned his claims. Rest (1986) analyzed 24 studies concerning

Christians and found Christians usually scored slightly below average, or at the average.

He concluded the literature generally supports the use of the DIT with Christian

populations.

The difficulty in reviewing literature concerning Christians is differentiating

research by definitions of Christianity. Some researchers categorized Christians by self-

identification. Some researchers categorized Christians through church membership or

religious activity. Other researchers categorized Christians through the use of measures of

religiosity.

Some researchers have not found religiosity to be a significant factor in moral

development. Wahrman (1981) studied college students of various religions and found

religion to be unrelated to moral judgment. Religion accounted for a mere 5% of the

variance of DIT P-scores in a study by Dickinson and Gabriel (1982). Similarly, Radich

(1982) studied religious youth and found no significant differences based upon religion

(as cited in Rest, 1986). In a primary study of the DIT2, Rest et al. (1999) investigated

200 participants, who were categorized into four groups. One group consisted of graduate

students and included 13 seminarians. Unfortunately, Rest et al. reported the seminarians’

53

scores as part of a larger group of professional school students, so data particular to the

seminarians were unavailable for this literature review.

A particularly interesting study of Christians was conducted by Nelson (2004).

Nelson found that while biblical literacy was related to higher P scores, those moral

scores were still underreporting the moral thinking of Bible college students. The

students were frequently responding favorably to stage 4 and stage 6 reasoning, but were

rejecting stage 5. Nelson suggested studies among religious populations might be more

accurate if scores for individual stages were also considered.

Christians may be unwilling to adopt stage 5 reasoning, while they willingly

adopt stage 6, because the social construction of stage 5 ethics is inconsistent with

biblical views of human sinfulness (Nelson, 2004). The universal and cosmic nature of

stage 6 does not have the human-created proposition of stage 5.

In a longitudinal study over four years of college, Shaver (1984) found results

similar to those of Nelson. Bible college students significantly decreased their use of

reasoning at stages 2 and 3, while they increased their reasoning at stages 4 and 6. There

was no significant change in stage 5 reasoning. The Bible college students were more

likely to choose reasoning at stages 4 or 6 than liberal arts college students.

The social contract/utilitarian features of stage 5 inherently contain two factors

that may be incompatible with some Christians’ theology. First, stage 5 reasoning,

according to Kohlberg, understood morality as arbitrary and socially constructed. Second,

stage 5 reasoning supposed human commitment to the social structure was paramount.

Rousseau’s (1988/1762) advice that religion and government be tools of social cohesion

54

exemplified such humanistic philosophy. Stage 6, on the other hand, presupposes pre-

existent and universal values. While Kohlberg did not contend stage 6 values were

theocentric, stage 6 at least allowed a theology of divine preexistence. Stage 5 thinking

was more theologically oriented toward the clock-maker theology, in which God exists

but exerts no influence.

Bible college students were found by Nelson (2004) to prefer stage 6 reasoning

over stage 5 reasoning. Nelson supported Richards’s (1991) earlier findings that

Christians frequently used stage 6 reasoning, but rejected the social contract aspects of

stage 5 reasoning. Because P scores were comprised of the combination of stage 5 and 6

responses, Christians P scores were below national norms. In Nelson’s study, the mean P

score among Bible college students were 35.17 (sd = 11.69). McNeel (1994) found Bible

college seniors had a mean P score of 37.96 (sd = 14.52) (cited in Nelson, 2004).

Because Christians may not have been fully evaluated by P scores alone, Nelson

(2004) recommended researchers give consideration to variations in the scores for each

stage of moral judgment. While P scores were the focus of most DIT research, the

statistical reports from the DIT also included the percentage of time a respondent

preferred a rationale from each moral stage. Investigating these preferences for each

individual stage allowed researchers to see particular stage preferences, such as stage 6

over stage 5, which were not included in P scores.

The hypothesis that Christians may have preferred to skip stage 5 also had

important ramifications for interpreting data of college-aged populations. It was during

college that most adults began to contemplate the abstract and philosophical bases for

55

principled reasoning. If non-Christians easily adapted to stage 5, they would have

appeared to progress more quickly than Christians. Such a trend might have led

researchers to conclude Christianity was negatively related to principled reasoning. If it

was true, however, that Christians prefered stage 6 more frequently than non-Christians,

the long-term result may have been that Christians more frequently attained the highest

stage of moral reasoning. The long-term benefit may not have appeared in studies of

Christian college students, and may not have been noticed in studies utilizing only the

common P score.

Some researchers have studied moral judgment as an outcome of theology.

Childerston (1985) found students rated as fundamentalists were likely to score at stage 4,

while students who did not fit the fundamentalist category were likely to score at stage 6.

Copeland (1994) studied 242 Christian college students and found students with more

fundamentalist theology scored lower on moral reasoning, using the DIT, than Christians

who were not categorized as fundamentalists. There was a slightly negative correlation (r

= -.13) between scores on a measure of religious fundamentalism and principled

reasoning (Rest et al., 1999).

Fundamentalist theology was defined in the cited studies according to the

believer’s commitment to authority, tradition and/or literalism. Because Kohlberg and

Rest both asserted that moral judgment is an outcome of personal reflection and cognitive

dissonance, an inverse relationship between fundamentalism and moral judgment should

be expected from fundamentalism, thusly defined.

56

Researchers have also investigated the religious motivation of individuals as an

affect on moral development. Blizard (1980) found a significant relationship between

moral reasoning and internal, as opposed to external, sources of religious authority.

Blizard also found a relationship between P scores among Christians and moral abstract

personal theology. In a study of 210 Christian college students, De Witt (1987) found

small but significant differences in moral reasoning based upon the subject’s level of

intrinsic religious motivation. Ang (1989) studied 41 Bible college students and found

intrinsic religious motivation was related to higher moral reasoning (DIT) more than

extrinsic motivation. Ang concluded Bible colleges should incorporate pedagogy that

would facilitate development of intrinsic religious motivation.

Ernsberger (1977) and Ernsberger and Manaster (1981) used the Religious

Orientation Scale (Allport & Ross, 1967) to factor intrinsic/extrinsic orientation into the

DIT scores. They found intrinsically-oriented (church institution-oriented) church

members were more likely to espouse moral reasoning of their church’s theology. This

could indicate personality interaction with the DIT. Similar studies, however, did not

result in similar observations (Brown & Annis, 1978; Waters, 1980). Ernsberger and

Manaster’s research has not been sufficiently validated. Findings relating intrinsic

religious motivation and authority were consistent with Fowler’s faith development

model (Wallwork, 1980). According to Fowler, an individual’s faith was deepened and

strengthened through thoughtful reflection on religious beliefs and a willingness to

investigate new religious ideas.

57

Many researchers found no relationship between religious identification and

moral judgment. Warren (1992) did not find significant differences between students at

Christian schools and public school students. Bruggeman (1996) also found no

relationship between attending public or private religious high schools in outcomes of P

scores. Wahrman (1980) did not find a significant relationship between moral reasoning

and religiosity or amount of time one has been actively religious. No significant

differences in moral reasoning were found in the religiosity of two-year nursing students

(Aronovitz, 1984). Guldhammer (1982) found principled reasoning increased across

college, but the increase was unrelated to religious identification. Catholicism was found

to be unrelated to moral development among college students (Wahrman, 1981).

Researchers investigating religious beliefs also frequently found no relationship

between beliefs and moral judgment. Washington (1999) did not find any relationship

between religious beliefs and moral development or religious activities and moral

development among 149 college students. In a study of 392 freshmen at a Christian

college, Banks (1995) found no significant differences on DIT scores between those

classified as liberals and those classified as conservatives on religiosity measures. In a

convenience sample of students at a large secular university, Hansen (1995) did not find

any relationship between moral judgment and religiosity, regardless of the liberalism or

conservatism of the individual’s religious orientation. Wahrman (1981) found a weak

0.153 correlation between religious dogmatism and moral development.

Longitudinal studies were infrequent in the literature, but researchers using such

data often reported no relationships between religion and moral judgment. McNeel

58

(1991) performed longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of students in a Christian

college and found students showed principled level maturation equivalent to national

norms. No statistically significant differences were reported among students at Christian

colleges and those students attending secular schools in a study combining cross-

sectional and longitudinal data (Buier, Butman, Burwell & VanWicklin, 1989).

Some researchers found negative relationships between religion and DIT scores.

Hoagland (1984) found conservative Christians used less principled reasoning than

liberals and nonreligious individuals, and conservative Christians were more likely to

operate at conventional stages. Faqua (1983) reported Christian college students scored

below national norms on the DIT. The lower scores were found both in science majors

and religion majors. Being a science or a religion major was not significantly related to

moral reasoning.

A difference between church members and nonmembers, with nonmembers

scoring higher on the DIT, was found by McGeorge (1976). Clouse (1991) and Stoop

(1979) found Christians generally scored at stage 4 (as cited in Rest, 1986). In another

study by Nelson (1998), Bible college students showed very slight progress in moral

development and remained in the conventional stages. Ernsberger and Manaster (1981)

found negative relationships between religiosity and moral judgment, even after

controlling for socio-economic factors (as cited in Rest).

Positive findings relating religion and moral judgment were reported by some

researchers. Positive studies involving students included Harris (1981), Friend (1991) and

Nelson (2004). Harris found biblical literacy and P scores were significantly related

59

among high school students (cited in Rest, 1986). Friend found seminary students scored

higher on the DIT than liberal arts undergraduate students. Nelson found biblical literacy,

moral development, and academic development progressed together among Bible college

students, but moral development was more related to biblical literacy than academic

development.

As previously reported, Nelson (2004) found P scores may have underreported the

moral thinking of Christians. Another study supporting Nelson’s proposal was conducted

by Hsieh (2003). Hsieh asked first-year, senior and graduate students, as well as faculty,

to complete the DIT-2 twice. In one examination, they were asked to complete the

instrument according to their own thoughts. In another administration, participants were

asked to complete the instrument according to their understanding of liberal values. All

groups improved their moral reasoning scores when acting as liberals. Hsieh concluded

educated Christians may well have understood liberal values, although their religious

convictions led them to choose more conventional reasoning.

Good and Cartwright (1998) found Bible college students showed moral growth

during their freshmen year yet reverted to lower level thinking by their senior year. Good

and Cartwright concluded the senior students had learned to think at higher stages yet

chose to ignore that moral philosophy in favor of conforming to the expectations of their

religious community. Wilcox (1986) reported evidence that some people may

demonstrate lower moral reasoning because they fear being labeled as troublemakers or

socially deviant. The immature yet principled thinker may find it difficult to advocate a

principled life in a conventional world. Kuran (1997) has written about the common

60

phenomenon of people misrepresenting their own beliefs in order to conform to social

norms.

Overall, the literature available concerning moral judgment of Christians was

quite contentious. In his detailed review of literature, Rest (1986) agreed with Kohlberg

and concluded religion was generally independent of moral judgment. Such a conclusion

was in contrast with the work of Fowler who directly tied the development of moral

judgment to the development of faith. Fowler’s definition of faith, however, was not faith

in the common religious sense (e.g., God’s providence) but rather faith in unproven ideas.

Previous research frequently suffered from significant flaws. Any research in

which religion was defined through self-identification or membership in an association,

such as a church or religious college, should be considered suspect (Lee, 1980). Just as

voter registration in a certain party does not provide significant information about a

voter’s ideology on most issues, religious identification is not the same as religious

conviction.

The self-identified ideology of individuals has been found to bear almost no

resemblance to the actual beliefs of those individuals (Converse, 1964). Further,

Converse argued the great majority of people are so lacking in critical, especially

abstract, thought, they cannot be said to truly hold any ideology. Personal development,

whether in terms of moral judgment, religious faith, or political involvement, is

contingent upon personal autonomy, thoughtful reflection, and discourse.

Autonomous, reflective, and active religious belief should result in more

developed moral judgment. The program evaluated in this dissertation was considered to

61

involve those developmental prerequisites. The rationale for this consideration is

developed later in this chapter.

DIT and Prisoners

The shortcomings of Gilligan’s care framework have been partially addressed

earlier in this chapter. A study by Gilgun (1995), however, bore significance for this

dissertation. Gilgun investigated whether criminals displayed emphasis on care

(Gilligan’s theory) or justice (Kohlberg and Rest’s theories). While the study did not

involve the DIT, its results provided considerable support to the validity claims of the

DIT in terms of both stage theory and applicability to the current study’s population.

Gilgun (1995) interviewed prisoners convicted of incest to determine whether

such offenders held justice or care moral orientations. She hypothesized offenders would

be justice oriented, because she believed the masculine and impersonal qualities of justice

would be more amenable to incest than the compassionate and personal concepts of care.

She concluded, however, incest perpetrators unanimously favored care orientations.

Incest perpetrators could more easily justify their actions through a care orientation,

which was inherently subjective and fluid.

In the field of corrections, the DIT has been used in many ways. For example,

Horan and Kaplan (1983) used the DIT to understand the sentencing decisions of jurists.

There was little research, however, directly related to this current program evaluation.

Directly related work had been absent for some time because NOBTS was the only

undergraduate college operating within a prison at the time of this study.

62

When the federal government cut financial aid for prisoner education, the

University of Great Falls was operating a prison college. The University conducted a

program evaluation in an attempt to justify state funding that would have continued the

program. Unfortunately, they found their program had virtually no impact on the moral

development of prisoners (Nelson, 1995). Spartanburg Methodist College also attempted

a program evaluation to justify its prison college in the face of federal budget cuts.

According to Everhart (1992), Spartanburg’s program provided some effect on the self-

esteem of black prisoners, but showed little else in terms of successful education.

Prison populations were noted by Rest (1974) as being among the most difficult

to help. Rest referred to educating prisoners as “extremely problematic” (p. 250). In fact,

he noted an absence of literature to guide policy and specifically remarked on the need

for such research. He warned of the potential challenge of prison rehabilitation, but

suggested even modest gains in the moral reasoning of prisoners would be “spectacular”

(p. 250).

In moral development testing, prisoners generally attained P scores similar to

middle school students (Rest, 1979b). The mean score for prisoners was 23.5, and the

mean score for middle school students was 21.9. People at this level of reasoning tended

to be egocentric in their moral reasoning. These scores compared with means of 31.8 for

high school students, 40 for adults, 42.3 for college students, 59.8 for seminarians at

liberal Protestant schools, and 65.2 for academic philosophers. Prisoners generally reason

at stages 2 or 3, measured by Kohlberg’s model (Stevenson, Hall & Innes, 2003).

Considering that Angola was home to only violent and habitual offenders, it may be

63

Angola inmates used moral reasoning no higher than the average for prisoners, and most

likely reasoned at lower levels.

One explanation for the low growth of prisoners may be found in the work of

Jessor and Jessor (1977). They investigated the thinking of delinquent youths and found

criminals were significantly more likely to exhibit external loci of control. External loci

of control are inconsistent with the autonomy said to be necessary for moral growth.

External loci of control may also make an individual less likely to engage in critical

reflection, since the results of reflection are not likely to be viewed as useful. In order for

the Seminary at LSP to be successful, it may need to facilitate self-empowerment of

inmates. Such self-empowerment can be difficult in a prison population where members

are unable to control virtually any aspect of their lives.

DIT and Pedagogy

The best method for moral education had been a topic of debate through much of

human history. Aristotle and Socrates lectured on moral development in ancient Greece.

Augustine and Erasmus proposed ideas of moral education in the ancient churches. Moral

education pedagogy, like moral philosophy, has changed across times and places.

Kohlberg’s general theory and advice on educational pedagogy evolved across his

career (Rest et al, 2000). According to Rest (1974), Kohlberg’s pedagogy was a blending

of Dewey’s philosophy and Piaget’s psychology. Kohlberg insisted any moral education

must be based in developmental theory. Moral education could not be virtue or habit

oriented but must have encouraged thoughtful analysis (Kohlberg, 1966). Like Kohlberg,

64

Rest (1986) refuted Aristotle’s assertion that morality was a product of good parenting

and was firmly established by adulthood. According to Rest (1986), “adults show more

change than younger participants in moral education programs” (p. 177).

The possibility of moral growth in adulthood was essential for the success of

criminal rehabilitation efforts. The effort at LSP presupposed moral development was

more fluid and adaptable for adults than suggested by Aristotle. Aristotle (1994), in his

writings, displayed a concern for justice, but he believed morality was a factor of

pedagogy built upon pedigree. Educational theory, at least since Dewey, has been

significantly more democratic. Additionally, earlier Christian educators, such as Erasmus

and Raikes, believed the lowliest members of society were capable of full moral growth

(Reed & Prevost, 1993).

According to Kohlberg (1966), moral teaching should be targeted one stage above

the level of the learners. Such teaching was within the limits learners were able to

understand, while it still required the learners to stretch mentally as they sought to

understand the materials. This teaching method was unrealistic, however. A teacher could

not assess a learner’s response to categorize the stage and then develop an appropriate

response, all within the timeframe available in class (Rest, 1974).

The difficulty of individuals teaching according to developmental theory may

have been one reason Kohlberg developed a structural approach to moral education (Bar-

Yam et al., 1980). He advocated the Just Community model, which was based on the use

of social environments to foster moral growth. The Just Community model incorporated

democratic governance, even with small children. The democratic principles facilitated

65

the dialogue necessary for exposure to new ideas, especially the controversial ideas

traditionally repressed in less open societies.

Just communities operated through a social contract system, which was based in

principled reasoning. An example Kohlberg provided for a Just Community was the

kibbutz movement, which expanded through Israel in the 1970s. Kohlberg believed the

religious socialism of the Jewish kibbutz was consistent with the democratic debate

necessary for moral development (Bar-Yam et al., 1980).

A kibbutz was a small, communal, egalitarian microcosm. Rules in a kibbutz were

socially created. Once rules were created, however, significant social pressure was placed

on individuals to maintain obligations under the social contract. This social pressure

sustaining kibbutz life seemed inconsistent with the philosophy of moral autonomy and

self-created moral principles Kohlberg formed from Kant. Kohlberg explained the

pressure was not inconsistent with his Kantian philosophy, however, because the pressure

existed to encourage more moral behavior (Bar-Yam et al., 1980).

The founding principle of a kibbutz was a commitment to the creation of social

justice. Therefore, the kibbutz social pressure was a pressure to be more just. Kohlberg

viewed this pressure as something to facilitate the principled reasoning of the individual,

who has presumably self-committed to justice. In other words, the kibbutz pressure was

opposite of the social pressure that motivated individuals to surrender principles to the

convention of society (Good & Cartwright, 1998; Kuran, 1997, Wilcox, 1986). In terms

of the neo-Kohlbergian model, the Just Community used social pressure to bridge the

66

gaps between moral judgment (component 2), moral motivation (component 3) and moral

virtue (component 4).

Kohlberg viewed religious systems to be external orders, which were rooted in

stage 4 thinking (Kohlberg & Power, 1981). Orders, whether from a visiting angel, the

Ten Commandments, the Bible, or a priest, were rules and not principles. Consequently,

Kohlberg viewed religious education as being of little moral value. According to

Kohlberg (1966), religious education was almost never effective in advancing moral

thought. This reinforced Kohlberg’s definition of religion in terms of social systems (e.g,

churches and denominations) rather than in terms internal belief systems.

Researchers have often come to different conclusions about religion’s impact on

morality when they considered religion at the individual level. Ang (1989) reported

intrinsically motivated Christians exhibited higher moral reasoning than extrinsically

motivated individuals. Religion that was internalized and personally meaningful, then,

appeared to have benefits for moral judgment. Ang investigated students at a Bible

college who were presumably the more theologically conventional members of their

religious communities. Ang concluded religious education pedagogy targeted at

developing internal religious reflection led to greater moral development.

Rest (1986) supported the idea that one’s motivation toward education was a great

influence on moral development. He also supported the Kohlbergian combination of

individual reflection and social support for moral development.

Development proceeds most when the person seeks to develop and when the situation fosters and supports development. Personal characteristics and environmental characteristics mutually influence each other. (p. 52)

67

The people who develop in moral judgment are those who love to learn, who seek new challenges, who enjoy intellectually stimulating environments, who are reflective, who make plans and set goals, who take risks, who see themselves in the larger social contexts of history and institutions and broad cultural trends, who take responsibility for themselves and their environs (p. 177) In general, prison inmates have not normally been academically oriented. This

may be a primary reason why prison education programs tend to receive little interest

from prisoners (Everhart, 1992). Contrarily, the LSP program’s enrollment capacity was

not large enough to satisfy the amount of interest from inmates. It was unknown,

however, what actually motivated students to participate in the program. It was possible

students simply wanted to alleviate boredom as was reported by many participants in

Everhart’s study. It may also have been these seminarians genuinely wanted to work in

ministry. A vocational interest in ministry did not, however, necessarily demonstrate an

academic interest in theology.

The vocational and practical foci of the LSP Seminary may have had a positive

influence on moral development even apart from academic interest in theology. Deemer

(1987) found a relationship between vocational satisfaction and moral judgment.

According to Rest (1986), the Deemer coding method “gives more importance to the

subject’s own sense of identity and doing personally meaningful work than to financial

security” (p. 54). This could have benefited students in Angola, because they presumably

committed themselves to a religious vocation they believed would be meaningful and

would fulfill their ‘calling.’ Maslow (1987/1954) proposed vocation was important to

personal fulfillment and growth. If the LSP Seminary facilitated a student’s vocational

68

development and personal fulfillment, the educational atmosphere may have been more

conducive to moral growth.

Another important finding from Deemer (1987) was his identification of “civic

responsibility” and “political awareness” as important factors relating to moral judgment

(as cited in Rest, 1986, pp. 54-55). The prison environment was noted earlier as being

overwhelmingly inconsistent with any sort of social activism. LSP’s warden, Burl Cain,

noted traditional corrections theory rejected any sort of empowerment for prisoners.

Many in the corrections field criticized the LSP Seminary precisely because it

empowered students (Frink, 2002).

Wright (2001) found community service was not related to increased moral

development among students at a Christian college. Wright investigated community

service requirements as part of a Christian college curriculum. Community service,

especially externally organized community service, was not the same as the civic

empowerment and activism investigated by Deemer (1987).

Education was related to moral development. According to Rest (1986), “One of

the strongest and most consistent correlates of development in moral judgment have been

years in formal education, even more so than chronological age per se” (p. 33). Rest

noted, however, that “short-term” moral education programs, lasting fewer than three

weeks, had not been shown to be effective. Moral education programs, such as found in

semester-long ethics courses, could be effective in producing small improvements in P

scores. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) noted college, overall, was a substantial catalyst

for moral development.

69

Despite research showing certain programs, and education in general, to be a

positive influences on moral development, the exact experiences that cause moral growth

were still unknown. Rest (1986) compared research attempts to discern which life

experiences foster moral growth to research attempts to discern which foods make people

obese. There was no clear answer because different people gained moral judgment from

different experiences just as different people gained weight from different foods.

Moral development appeared to be more gradual than punctuated. While general

activities, such as college attendance, were related to development, Rest (1986) could not

identify specific moments or moral issues that caused growth. An experiential example

provided by Rest was that the socio-moral issues of dodging the Selective Service draft

did not discernibly affect moral judgment. Rest (1974) did identify participative

education as one pedagogical technique with the potential for moral impact. Moral

development could be fostered by providing students with opportunities to involve

themselves in new “social roles,” such as “teacher, counselor, or caretaker.” The key to

such moral growth opportunities was to provide students with “real responsibility” (Rest,

1974, p. 255).

The LSP Seminary students were active in their religious communities and were

involved in the field where they felt called for their vocations. The program’s addition of

internships allowed the practice of pastoral responsibility among students. A pastor has

been biblically defined in Rest’s terms of being a “teacher, counselor, [and] caretaker.”

As students studying pastoral work, and actively involved in aspects of that work, the

70

LSP students may have been exposed to the developmental catalysts infamously absent in

the corrections system.

Clinical Pastor Education (CPE) training significantly increased the moral

reasoning of seminary students who were below their group average at the beginning of

training (Leeland, 1990). No significant change was found in those students who began

the program at the average or higher than average levels of moral reasoning. It was

unknown whether the more advanced students had previously been exposed to the

learning experiences provided by CPE, and were therefore less affected by it, or whether

CPE was generally less effective for advanced moral thinkers. Regardless of the reason

advanced thinkers benefited less from pastoral experiences as part of their education,

Leeland’s findings were significant for the LSP population. If LSP students began their

education at the low levels of moral reasoning expected of prisoners, the practical

education of LSP should have been quite beneficial.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

MBTI Construction

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, developed by Katherine Briggs and Isabel

Briggs Myers, was based upon Carl Jung’s psychological theory. Jung posited human

personalities could be classified according to the methods by which individuals

cognitively received new information, and the processes by which individuals processed

that information. For each consideration, there were two personality types. People

71

received information either intuitively or through the senses. The person with a

preference for Intuition (N) preferred to receive information as concepts or systems. The

person with a preference for Sensing (S) preferred to receive information in practical or

concrete manners (Myers et al., 2003).

People processed information either through thinking or through feelings. The

person with a preference for Thinking (T) preferred to process information through

objective, rational analysis. The person with a preference for Feeling (F) preferred to

process information by evaluating the information in accordance with personal values

(Myers et al., 2003).

Briggs and Myers (Myers et al., 2003) further developed Jung’s theory to include

two more aspects of personality. They added considerations of how a person interacted

with the world, and how people acted upon their information processing. Briggs and

Myers proposed people were either Extroverts (E) or Introverts (I), and either Judging (J)

or Perceiving (P). Introverts preferred to focus their energy internally. Extroverts

preferred to focus their energy externally. People who preferred Judging worked to make

decisions with their information and to organize their environs. People who preferred

Perceiving were more inclined to leave evaluations of information flexible and adaptable.

Although each dichotomy (i.e., E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P) of the MBTI operated

independently of the others, the combinations formed the full MBTI personality “type.”

Someone with preferences for Extraversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Judging was not

merely an E, an N, a T, and a J. The person was an ENTJ. The interaction of each

independent dichotomy created a unique total personality. Thinking Extroverts did their

72

thinking differently than Thinking Introverts. In total, there were 16 MBTI types (Myers

et al., 2003).

The MBTI instrument was a paper and pencil, multiple choice assessment

administered by practitioners qualified according to the guidelines of the MBTI

publisher, the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT). CAPT allowed

practitioners to be qualified through academic credentials, CAPT training, or university

supervision. The researcher conducting this study was qualified by CAPT through all

three criteria.

Item statements in the MBTI were similar in theoretical construction to those in

the DIT. The wordings were provided in a manner that elicited specific thoughts in

individual readers. At the same time, statements did not provide the details necessary for

readers to construct a new concept or discern the instrument’s intention. Like the DIT, the

MBTI had been used for decades, administered to multitudes of people, and utilized and

validated through thousands of studies (Myers et al., 2003).

An important feature of the MBTI was the theoretical assumption that all MBTI

personality types were inherently natural and healthy. Unlike many other psychological

measures, such as the Neo Personality Assessment, the MBTI could not be used to

classify anyone as ordinally higher or lower than anyone else. The MBTI was designed to

help individuals understand themselves and others, not to form a basis for diagnosing or

treating participants (Myers et al., 2003). Table 1 provides information on the distribution

of personality types in the American population.

73

Table 1 Type of Percentage of US Population Demographic Groups

Type US Total Blacks Males Male CollegeStudents

ISTJ 12-16 15.0 16.4 12.48ISFJ 10-13 12.7 8.1 5.44INFJ 2-3 1.4 1.2 2.65INTJ 3-4 1.9 3.3 5.40ISTP 5-7 5.8 8.5 6.81ISFP 5-7 10.0 7.6 4.09INFP 4-5 2.5 4.1 5.32INTP 5-6 3.6 4.8 6.63ESTP 5-7 6.1 5.6 6.72ESFP 6-9 9.7 6.9 4.41ENFP 6-8 8.9 6.4 6.26ENTP 4-7 1.4 4.0 6.77ESTJ 10-12 8.9 11.2 12.81ESFJ 10-12 8.6 7.5 5.46ENFJ 3-5 1.1 1.6 2.98ENTJ 3-5 2.5 2.7 5.78E 50-55 47.1 45.9 51.18I 45-50 52.9 54.1 48.82S 65-70 76.8 71.7 58.22N 30-35 23.2 28.3 41.78T 45-55 42.7 56.5 63.4F 45-55 57.3 43.5 36.6P 40-45 47.9 48.0 47.0J 55-60 52.1 52.0 53.0

Note. Data collected from Myers et al., 2003.

MBTI and the DIT

Because the MBTI presupposed all personality types were inherently equal in

terms of psycho-social value, it would have been reasonable to think personality types

were unrelated to moral judgment. Research did not support that presupposition,

however. The philosophical foundations of Kohlberg were predisposed to certain

74

personality types. The differences in moral reasoning related to personality type were not

a reason to discount either instrument, however. Instead, a theoretical synthesis of the

DIT and MBTI can actually help evaluators and educators. Evaluators may integrate the

MBTI instrument with moral evaluation to better understand research results. Educators

may use an understanding of the MBTI theory to create pedagogy that better addresses

the individual student.

The Kantian ethical system of evaluating individual actions through universalized

systems was Intuitive (N), rather than Sensing (S). The objective, formal Thinking (T)

preference was more aligned with the calculated rationalism of Kant than the personal

values orientation of the Feeling (F) preference. The reflective nature of Introversion (I)

was logically more related to Kantian ethics than the social orientation of Extraversion

(E). Finally, the tentativeness and openness of Perceiving (P) types was hypothetically

more inclined toward postconventional growth than the Judging (J) preference, which

was related to preferences for definition and closure. In theory, then, an INTP would have

been most amenable to moral development, and an ESFJ would have been least amenable

to moral development.

Advanced moral thinking was contingent upon the synthesis and systemization of

abstract principles and philosophies (Rest, 1974). Such higher order thinking was similar

to the descriptions of Thinking (T) and especially Intuition (N) in Myers-Briggs

typology. Feeling (F) oriented people sought decision-making through subjectively

evaluating the scenario, whereas Thinking (T) oriented people were more likely to seek

the incorporation of universal principles. Intuitive types looked for the whole system in

75

operation, while Sensors sought the obvious answer to the present circumstances (Myers

et al., 2003).

According to Hirsh and Kise (2000), NTs were likely to create new systems for

application and SFs frequently worked to build community. Therefore, NTs were

naturally consistent with Kohlberg’s theory, while SFs were more naturally inclined

toward conventional reasoning. Hasler (1987) hypothesized the Introverted (I) personality

type would be related to higher moral reasoning, as measured by the Sociomoral

Reflection Objective Measure (SROM). Hasler, however, found the E/I scale was not

related to moral development, while the J/P scale was significant to moral development.

Those with Perceiving (P) preferences were likely to score higher on moral reasoning

than those with Judging (J) preferences. Hasler concluded the closure-seeking tendencies

of Js made them less likely to seek and internalize the new experiences necessary to

cause moral growth.

The relationship between personality type and moral reasoning was investigated

by O’Brien (2000). She found the perception (S/N) and judging (T/F) functions were both

significantly related to moral reasoning scores. Additionally, the perception and judging

functions combined to create a significant interaction effect for moral reasoning. The

Feeling (F) preference was significantly related to more frequent use of stage 3 reasoning

than the Thinking (T) preference. Intuition (N) judgment was related to more frequent

post-conventional moral reasoning than Sensing (S). Taylor (1992) also found Thinking

(T) was related to higher moral reasoning than Feeling (F). Contrary to most research,

76

McMahon (1992) found the Feeling (F) preference was related to higher moral reasoning.

Sensing (S) and Judging (J) preferences were related to stage 4 reasoning.

Redford (1993) hypothesized higher moral reasoning among people with

preferences for Extraversion (E), Intuition (N), Thinking (T) and/or Perceiving (P)

preferences. She found ISFJ and ISTJ were both underrepresented among participants

with above-average moral reasoning. Further findings included the Intuitive (N) and

Introverted Perceiving (IP) preferences were significantly related to above average moral

reasoning. Redford concluded the moral growth of ISJs was slowed because they were

more focused on the present and less willingly to entertain conflicting paradigms.

Unlike O’Brien (2000), Redford (1993) did not find significant moral reasoning

differences between participants with Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) preferences.

Redford’s research built upon the findings of Catoe (1992) and Denny (1988). Catoe

(1992) found Intuition (N) was related to higher moral reasoning than Sensing (S) and

Denny (1988) found no difference in moral reasoning based upon the Thinking (T) or

Feeling (F) preferences of the participants. Denny (1988) did not use the DIT or MJI but

chose the Social Reflection Questionnaire (SRM). The difference in method may account

for not finding a relationship between MBTI preference and moral reasoning.

Gilligan’s theory of women using a care orientation, as opposed to male justice,

had not been validated by subsequent research. Gender differences in personality type

might be used to partially explain some moral orientations. Women were moderately

more likely to prefer Feeling (F), and men were moderately more likely to prefer

Thinking (T) (Myers et al., 2003).

77

A relationship between Feeling and care is not necessarily supportive of

Gilligan’s theory. Neither is it contrary to Kohlberg’s claims of a universal moral theory.

Additionally, the MBTI preferences were not absolute descriptions of human thought and

action. A preference simply implied the most natural behavior for an individual. In fact, a

fundamental part of MBTI theory was that all people used all preference types at some

time. An Introvert was not absolutely disinterested in socializing. A person who preferred

Feeling (e.g., values) was not absolutely disinterested in objectivity. Therefore, a person

with a preference for Extraversion, Sensing, Feeling and/or Judging was not incapable of

using the opposite types, which were more related to principled moral judgment.

Moreover, mature personality development included the practice of using the less

preferred types (Myers et al., 2003).

If a person who preferred Feeling was not naturally drawn to the objectivity and

impersonality of Kantian autonomy and rationalism, mature type development would

allow that Feeling person to use the Thinking preference well enough to incorporate

moral principles. Similarly, people who preferred Thinking may have been naturally

drawn toward autonomy and impersonality, but those people should develop the Feeling

aspect of personality well enough to develop and incorporate values into their

rationalism.

The humanistic rationalism of Kant, the cognitive psychology of Kohlberg, the

personality typology of Myers and Briggs, and even Christian theology all assume a basic

human dignity from which each person can develop to healthy personal fulfillment.

Researchers have generally found Introversion (I), Intuition (N), Thinking (T) and

78

Perceiving (P) to be influences on higher levels of moral judgment. One’s MBTI type

preference was an influence on the path to one’s moral development but was not the

arbitrator of one’s moral development. Personality was not destiny.

MBTI and Christians

MBTI personality preferences have been shown to be related to moral judgment.

Some researchers have also reported certain type preferences were over- or

underrepresented among Christians. Additionally, some researchers have found particular

personality types were more predictive of vocational interest in ministry.

Childerston (1985) reported moral reasoning was related to fundamentalist

theology and type preference was related to level of fundamentalism, making type

preference indirectly related to moral reasoning among Bible college students.

Childerston noted this was an important distinction because unlike moral stages, no type

was presumed to be better than another. The key to moral development for Bible college

students with the Sensing preference, who were overrepresented in the Bible college, was

in mature type development in which people exercised their secondary preferences (i.e.,

Intuition).

College students with higher DIT scores were found by Volker (1979) to be less

religiously active than the average (as cited in Rest, 1986) for college students. This

could have been a factor of the Extraversion/Introversion dichotomy. Introverts were

more likely to score well on tests and less likely to be involved in any social communities

(Myers et al., 2003). If actively religious people were more likely to be Extraverts, and

79

Extraverts scored lower on the DIT, it may have been Extraversion and not religious

activity that was directly related to lower levels of moral judgment.

MBTI preferences bore tremendous relationships with individuals’ interests in

religion, moral autonomy and vocational ministry. Table 2 shows type preferences related

to such issues. ISTPs, INTPs, INFPs and ENTPs were the four groups most likely to rank

“autonomy” as “very important.” ISFJs, ESFPs, ESFJs and INFJs were most likely to

rank “spirituality” as “very important” (Myers et al., 2003, p. 315). INTPs were the most

likely type to desire autonomy, while ESFJs were the least likely to desire autonomy.

Conversely, INTPs were least likely to desire spirituality, while ESFJs were most likely

to desire spirituality.

Table 2 Type Correlation with Values and Careers

Type Values Autonomy

Values Spirituality

Vocational Ministry

ISFJ X INFJ X X ISTP X INFP X INTP Xa Y ESFP X ENFP X ENTP X ESFJ Y Xa X ENFJ X

Note. Data collected from Myers et al., 2003. Xa = Type with highest correlation to descriptor. Y = Type with lowest correlation to descriptor.

80

The types most likely to enter careers in ministry were INFJ, ISFJ, ENFP, ENFJ

and ESFJ. Ministry careers were among the 10 most common careers for 6 of the 8

Feeling (F) types. Additionally, the five types most likely to enter vocational ministry

included all four FJ types (INFJ, ISFJ, ENFJ and ESFJ). Notably, vocational ministry

was not listed as one of the 10 most likely careers for any Thinking (T) type. Vocational

ministry was one of the 10 least likely careers for INTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTP, ISTP,

ISTJ, accounting for six of the eight Thinking (T) types (Myers et al., 2003). The Feeling

preference was highly related to ministry careers, while the Thinking preference was a

clear predictor of disinterest in ministry careers.

The relationships between MBTI preferences and religious vocations were studied

by Ruppart (1985). Catholic priests and nuns were likely to be ISFJs. Protestant and

Jewish clergy were frequently ENFJs. Considering all clergy together, nearly four-fifths

were Feeling (F) oriented and almost three-quarters were Judging (J) oriented. The

ministerial type was FJ, while fewer than one in ten clergy were NTs or SPs. Phoon

(1987) found ESFJs were significantly overrepresented among Seventh Day Adventist

clergy.

The findings relating to types among clergy did not indicate that people of less

common types were ill-suited for ministry. The MBTI was not a career placement test. In

Phoon’s (1987) study of Seventh Day Adventists, she found Introverts (I) often found

ways to serve through behind-the-scenes activities, such as prayer. Those participants

who saw themselves as church leaders, whether pastoral leaders, or managerial leaders,

were more likely to have Extraverted (E) preferences. In another study of career

81

satisfaction among clergy, Thinkers (T) were more satisfied with administrative

responsibilities, while Sensors (S) were more satisfied with interpersonal responsibilities

(Johnson, 1991).

Three important studies involved investigations of personality types among

Southern Baptist ministers. Whelchel (1996) studied MBTI type frequencies of 2,630

Southern Baptist missionaries which accounted for three-quarters of all SBC

missionaries. Whelchel obtained the data from the SBC which had administered the

MBTI to every new missionary for the previous decade. He found Sensing (S) and

Feeling (F) preferences were most common. However, Intuitive (N) types were most

likely to persevere in missions. Sanson (2000) studied Southern Baptist pastors seeking

the Doctor of Ministry degree and found Sensing (S) and Judging (J) preferences were

the most common and overrepresented among the pastors. Berryhill (1991) found Feeling

(F) was overrepresented among seminarians at the Southern Baptist Theological

Seminary.

The Berryhill (1991), Whelchel (1996) and Sanson (2000) studies bore significant

relevance for this program evaluation, but they also involved some distinctions from this

research. Berryhill studied students at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in

Lousiville, KY . Whechel studied international missionaries. Sanson studied professional

doctoral students. In general, their findings supported the common findings that Sensing

(S), Feeling (F) and Judging (J) preferences were overrepresented among ministers.

Bramer (1995) also found S, F and J preferences were related to ministerial careers

among evangelical ministers. Further, Bramer found type differences were related to

82

preferences for types of ministerial roles and the social attributes individuals preferred in

their churches.

Sensing and Judging preferences on the MBTI have been found to be predictive

of conventional moral reasoning among Bible college students. Intuitive (N) preferences

were predictive of less fundamentalist theology than Sensing (S) preferences among

Bible college students (Childerston, 1985). Lee (1985) found MBTI personality types

related to significant differences in commitment to the theological tenants of one’s

church. The Sensing (S) and Judging (J) preferences predicted greater commitment. SF

and J preferences were overrepresented among religiously conservative males. Harman

(1982) found the Feeling (F) preference was overrepresented among students entering a

Church of Christ college.

People with a preference for Sensing (S) tended to seek hands-on careers. Those

who preferred Feeling (F) sought careers that combined “service” and were

“harmonious.” Those with a preference for Judging (J) sought careers that operated

according to a “system and order.” The fit between SFJ preferences and ministerial

careers was clear. By contrast, the Intuitive (N) preference led toward careers involving

“new problems to be solved.” The Perceiving (P) preference led toward work based on

“understanding situations; Thinking (T) led to careers with “logical…ideas” (Myers et

al., 2003, p. 293.) The inclinations of NTP types, who were very unlikely to enter

ministry, fit more closely with Kohlberg’s theory than did the inclinations of SFJs who

were quite likely to enter ministry.

83

MBTI and Prisoners

Very little research has been conducted to learn about personality types and

criminology. Lippin (1988) investigated personality types among female prisoners in

Maryland. Livernoise (1987) studied personality types among male prisoners in the

Orange County, FL jail. Combined, their studies provided interesting information on

personalities and criminal behavior. Their studies, however, were limited to small

populations and were not necessarily generalizable.

Thinking (T) was overrepresented among the females (Lippin, 1988); the

preference for Thinking (T) was especially pronounced in women convicted of crimes

involving drugs or violence. Livernoise (1987), whose findings are displayed in Table 3,

found Feeling (F) to be overrepresented among males. Lippin’s finding that Thinking (T)

was related to criminal behavior was counterintuitive. One possible interpretation may be

a relationship between low levels of education and criminal behavior in Thinkers (T).

Perhaps the low education common among the female prisoners restricted the women’s

ability to adequately utilize their Thinking (T) preferences. Lippin and Livernoise both

found Introverts (I) were overrepresented among the incarcerated populations.

The inclusion of males in Livernoise’s (1987) study was particularly relevant to

this research project. In general, Livernoise found the Intituition (I), Sensing (S) and

Feeling (F) preferences were related to incarceration, while Extraversion (E), Intuition

(N) and Thinking (T) types were underrepresented. SJs and FJs were overrepresented

among those convicted of sexual crimes. IPs were overrepresented among inmates

convicted of violent crimes and EPs were overrepresented among crimes involving theft.

84

Table 3 Relationships between Personality and Criminal Charges

Charge Types Overrepresented

Types Underrepresented

All Charges ISTP, ESFP, ESFJ, I, S, F, SP, SF, TP

INTJ, ISFP, ESTJ, ENTJ, E, N, T, IN, NT, EJ

Murder IP

Sexual Misconduct ESFJ, J, SJ, FJ

P

Kidnapping INFP, IN

Drugs ENTJ, EJ

All Personal Assault INFP

EP

Burglary, Theft, and Robbery

ENFP, EP

Note. Data collected from Livernoise (1987). Study included 298 inmates at a county jail.

MBTI and LSP

Overall, the literature on the DIT and the MBTI did not indicate LSP Seminary

students should have been expected to do well on a measure of moral judgment. Table 4

provides a synthesis of findings concerning the DIT and MBTI as related to this study.

Prisoners typically had very low moral judgment abilities. Christians, as well,

frequently scored below comparative averages on the DIT. The review of data on the

MBTI revealed the MBTI preferences most common to Christians, ministers, prisoners,

and blacks were all predictive of lower than average DIT scores. Quite simply, the LSP

85

Seminary students were expected to have most personality type factors working against

them.

Table 4 Personality Relationships to Descriptors

Descriptors Types Overrepresented

High P score N, T, P, IP

Low P score S, F, J

Prisoners I, S, F, SP, SF, IP

Ministers S, F, J

Religious S, F, J, SF

Theology

This program evaluation was intended to measure the success of the NOBTS

program at LSP in promoting moral development among students. In order to devise a

method for such an evaluation, it was necessary to have an understanding of moral

development theory. Equally important, however, was to understand what moral

philosophy was most fitting for an evaluation of the Seminary. An appropriate program

evaluation cannot measure the program against a standard incongruent with the program

curriculum and goals.

Kohlberg’s (1966) developmental model of morality was just one of many moral

philosophies. The literature concerning Kohlberg’s model and Christian populations was

86

mixed. Some researchers reported no significant relationship between religiosity and

morality. Other researchers found a negative relationship between Christianity and moral

judgment. Few researchers found religiosity to be beneficial to moral development.

While Kohlberg (1966) and the theological frame of the Seminary diverged in

significant areas, these differences were not so great as to negate the use of Kohlberg’s

theory within a Christian context. Further, the literature reviewed indicated Baptist

theology was principled in terms of Kohlberg’s model.

Kohlberg and Theology

Kohlberg’s (1967) bias against religion and his limited understanding of religion

led him to misinterpret Christianity is some ways that negatively affect Christians

evaluated using his model. These issues, once understood, may serve to bridge the gap

between Kohlberg and Christianity and lead to more valid evaluations of Kohlberg, the

DIT, and Christian moral programs.

Kohlberg’s (1967) conclusion that religion was extraneous to moral development

was meaningless, because Kohlberg defined religion by religious affiliation (Lee, 1980).

Religious scholars considered self-identified religious affiliation to be minimally related

to actual religiosity. Kohlberg’s conclusions were biased by definition of religious belief.

The stages of Christian beliefs were directly compared to the stages of moral

development by Kohlberg and Power (1981). Stage 3 was based on relationships in both

Christian faith and moral development. Stage 3 religious thinking was described as

defining sin as acts leading to embarrassment before God. In stage 4, moral decisions

87

were deferred to God’s law. Stage 5 reasoning was based on the social contract and

included God as a partner in the contract. In this stage, Kohlberg believed religion helped

to supplement moral reasoning with a sense of meaning. Stage 6 was represented by

luminaries, such as Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Mother Teresa (Kohlberg &

Power, 1981).

Despite Kohlberg’s (1967) antagonism toward religious moral education, he

noticed an undeniable relationship between religiosity and the people who he deemed

most moral. Kohlberg considered Martin Luther King and Thomas Aquinas to be

examples of stage 6 reasoning because both were determined to satisfy universal moral

standards that were transcendental rather than governmental. Such transcendental moral

principles were of paramount importance to Kohlberg (Kohlberg & Power, 1981;

Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1990).

Kohlberg and Power (1981) praised the moral concern of Christian theology but

also declared that concern to be lower level thinking. They viewed the connection

between God and the believer as inconsistent with autonomy.

Christianity and Judaism…view God’s principal concern as being not for cultic worship but for love and justice. They emphasize that to be in harmony with God people must act morally, but they also stress that people must rely on God in order to live a moral life. (p. 321) On one hand, Christians believed in principles of love (agape) and justice. On the

other hand, Christians believed in obeying God’s call for love and justice. For Kohlberg

and Power (1981), the externality of God defiled Christian principles.

88

Kohlberg and Power (1981) continued to make the same mistakes as past

secularists. According to Beach (1952), secular rationalist philosophers, such as Kant,

accepted the role of religion in the morality of some of humanity’s greatest heroes. They

treated each hero’s religion, however, as if it were somehow superfluous and dependent

upon the innate qualities of the individuals (Beach). The error led such philosophers to

the conclusion that true morality was always independent of religion.

Ferre (1951) explained Kierkegaard’s theology of the relationship between God

and good:

God and the true good cannot be separated. God does not do the good because the good is primary, nor does the good depend upon any arbitrary decree of deity. God is and does the good because his nature is and constitutes the nature of goodness. In so far as man knows the good, that far he knows God, and hence that good cannot be suspended without both violation of the ethical order and sinning against God. (pp. 246-247) When Kohlberg evaluated Christians using his model, the Christians were

evaluated as much by the semantics of their responses as by the meaning of those

responses (Kohlberg & Power, 1981). It was not enough for Christians to appeal to love

or justice; the Christians must have appealed using the right phraseology.

The Golden Rule was cited by Kohlberg (1973) as an example of principled

reasoning because it was abstract. He contrasted the biblical imperative of the Golden

Rule to the Ten Commandments which he stated were more concrete and legalistic. Still,

the Golden Rule, according to Kohlberg (1973), was not always principled. Kohlberg

(1973) claimed the Golden Rule could also be used in stage 3 or stage 6 reasoning. The

variable nature of the Golden Rule led Kohlberg to conclude Christian moral philosophy

89

had no inherent moral stage. This conclusion, once again, reinforced Kohlberg’s belief

that religion was naturally inactive in moral development and merely supported moral

reasoning achieved autonomously.

Comparing the biblical system to the Kohlbergian system was a method toward

evaluating the compatibility of Christian theology and Kohlberg’s philosophy. According

to Aron (1977), in stage 4 reasoning “morality is conceived of as simply obeying existing

laws and rules” (p. 206). In Stage 5, “morality is seen as transcending civil society and

pertaining to the rights and duties of humanity as a whole” (p. 206). Finally, “the stage 6

individual sees it as his or her duty to enforce the rights of others” (p. 206). Analyzed in

these terms, Christianity most closely fits stage 6. A difficulty in assigning stage 6 to

Christian theology, however, was applying Kohlberg’s (1981) own determination that

stealing the drug was a duty for everyone because all persons would want the drug stolen

if they were in the situation of Heinz’s wife.

Baptist theology was unmistakably principled in many other ways. For example,

Kohlberg (1982) cited liberty of conscience as principled stage 5 philosophy. The

Christian theology of love (agape) was especially central to understanding both Kohlberg

and Christianity. Kohlberg and Power (1981) considered the Christian theology of agape

to be consistent with the highest stage of moral reasoning. Agape, constituting overriding,

universal and consistent love for others and was a principal factor of Christianity. The

authors also noted that while love, was a general religious theme, Christian agape was

especially comprehensive and principled. They contrasted the active morality of agape

with the passive doctrine of karma.

90

Kohlberg and Power (1981) addressed the question of whether the moral apex of

agape, based in love, was in conflict with justice. In their conclusion, agape presupposed

justice and was, therefore, not in conflict. The idea of agape progressing from justice then

raised the question of whether agape was superior to justice, and therefore a seventh

stage. They believed agape and justice were so interconnected that neither could be said

to supersede the other. Agape and justice were coequal. Kohlberg and Power’s

explanation, however, did not entirely resolve their questions. They noted a community

of Christians would “work selflessly together for one end, the glory of God as defined by

their common religion” (p. 352). Yet they failed to address exactly how such people

would respond to moral dilemma questions and why they would not be categorized as

stage 4 thinkers for appealing to their external religion. Instead of directly answering such

questions, Kohlberg and Power appealed to a perceived flexibility in their model.

The key to higher order thinking was the abstract concern for justice, rather than

the outcome of that justice. Christians could appeal to God’s glory as an outcome of just

thinking, while devotees of other philosophies could appeal to other ideal outcomes. So,

it was clear Kohlberg and Power (1981) believed actualized Christians would be stage 6

thinkers. The question remained as to whether actualized Christians would be scored as

principled thinkers using Kohlberg’s methodology.

Stage 7

Kohlberg and Power (1981) noted that while pure reason could provide

knowledge of what should be done in a given situation, reason could not provide

91

motivation to do right when the costs became great. At that point, religion became a great

basis for people to bear the costs of morality. Unfortunately, Kohlberg and Power (1981)

treated religion, not as a true source of motivation, but as a psychological source. In other

words, religion was much like a crutch for weak-willed people to build the courage to act

on the morals they knew were just.

Kohlberg and Power (1981) argued the Christian concept of agape was in addition

to the basic concept of justice. In their theory of a stage 7, based on agape, they defined

agape as an act beyond the call of moral duty. This was a great addition but not

necessary to achieve optimal stage 6 morality.

Many Christians were grappling with the complexity of moral dilemmas and the

demands of justice well before Kohlberg began his research. For many Christians, agape

was not an addition to morality, but the essence of morality. Justice was a foundation for

many Christian ethics, but justice was insufficient in itself. A religion or ethic absent of

agape would not bear any resemblance to Christianity. At the same time, the Christian

ethic was based on the presumed foundation of justice.

Several years before Kohlberg wrote his dissertation that began his career, Beach

(1952) foreshadowed Kohlberg and Power’s (1981) stage 7.

A Christian social ethics can be based on the Bible only in a derivative sense…. Biblical morality throws light only obliquely on such pressing moral questions as the relation of justice and love, the criterion for choice among competing neighbor-claims, the issue of compromise and strategy within a social order which constricts all feasible choices down to evil options, the dialectic of freedom and order, etc. These are the central working problems of the Christian in the social arena. The New Testament ‘law of love’ can and must preside over the Christian debate on these matters, but in itself it is a remote judge. Mutually self-contradictory policies can often claim its sanction. (p. 116)

92

In the moral systems of Kant, Rawls and Kohlberg, development consisted

partially of deciding what to value. For the Christian, the ultimate values were

established. The abstract and cognitive question for Christians was how to apply those

values. A Christian could not live out Christian ethics by following rules or developing

the habits of virtue. The Bible served as a resource for the Christian to interpret what

principles existed (e.g., love and justice), but the Bible did not contain rules for the

knowing the loving and just action for a particular time and place. The Christian, then,

must have thought about the situation and chosen the morally right action (Beach, 1952).

Theology as Contemplation

The creation of a new social order reliant upon the justice of God was argued for

by Tyndale (2000/1528). While he did not believe in the usurpation of the divinely

ordained rulers, he did believe in a civil disobedience that refused to acquiesce to

injustice. His thinking and reflection about God led him to take moral actions regardless

of the temporal law. For the Christian, critical thinking was expected. Protestant theology

considered human rationality to separate humankind from other creatures (Beach, 1952).

Kantian ethicists misconstrued the abusive records of many churches and nations,

operating under the name of Christianity, to be, in fact, Christianity (Ferre, 1951). The

reality, however, was that Christianity theology consisted of a far more autonomous and

principled ethical system. Still, it would be going too far to link Christian ethics with the

93

strict humanism of Kant. Ferre’s view of Christian theology informed a far more

balanced ethic of freedom, one balanced by an authority that enlivened freedom.

The simplest way to exhibit this relationship between authority and autonomy in the Christian faith is to define the nature of Christian authority…. We Christians have no magic book to be used indiscriminately, unintelligently, and woodenly. Such an authority would indeed make us guilty of heteronomous ethics…! Nor do we accept the decrees of an infallible human institution with the keys to bind the consciences of men…. If any organization of men could decree for other men what their eternal obligation is and substitute such decrees for people’s own moral insight and conscience, we certainly should have a damaging moral heteronomy…. The nature of Christian authority is, rather, the love of God in Christ Jesus…. Christian love by its very nature bestows freedom on the objects of its love. God is not concerned with the manufacture of puppets but with the maturing of children…. Not only is this authority thus not inconsistent with freedom, but, in fact, agape as authority expresses its very self by the creation and the fostering of such freedom. In this sense, then, authority and autonomy both coincide and reinforce each other…. Christian authority is of such a nature as to effect autonomy. Therefore the distinction between the two concepts is false…. (pp. 249-250) Waltke (1995) similarly argued for a moral theonomy based on the individual’s

“sound judgment,” used in conjunction with the Bible and the Holy Spirit (p. 143). The

Christian use of rationality, however, was preceded by an understanding that “God’s

Word is certain; human reason is less certain” (p. 145). Therefore, the Christian did not

disregard the Bible. The Christian used reason to apply biblical principles.

Most secular philosophy scholars misconstrued Kant to be more antagonistic to

religion than was warranted by his writings (Hare, 2001). According to Hare, Kant did

not argue moral laws were entirely self-created. Instead, Kant sought to find a way in

which moral law was not homocentric or theocentric but was eternally pre-existent with

God. Through such a philosophy, Kant’s appeals to moral law were not appeals to man-

made law or God-made law but simply to law.

94

Kant believes that autonomy is not only consistent with submission to political authority, but requires that submission. His argument is that coercion by the state is necessary in order to prevent coercion by individuals…. External compulsion by the state is thus ‘a hindering of the hindrances to freedom…. It is only within a civil condition , where there is a legislator to enact laws, an executive to enforce them, and a judiciary to settle disputes about rights by reference to such public laws, that human beings can do what it can be known a priori they must be able to do in accordance with moral principles….’ A citizen is in this way morally justified in adopting into her own will the will of the ruler. The analogy with God’s rule is systematic…. God can punish and reward us. As we have already seen, this is not supposed to be the ground for our obedience. But it is essentially tied to the way in which God can be the author of the obligation to obey the law in a way that we are not. (pp. 109-110)

Baptist Individualism

According to Shurden (1998), the foundation for a distinction of Baptists was the

consistent focus on liberty and conscience. Baptists were among the most individualistic

denominations and pioneers in the concept of democracy (Harkness, 1939). Shurden

traced Baptist beliefs in individualism and freedom of conscience back to the 1600s, a

century before Kant.

While there has been a long academic and historical attempt to define Baptists,

there were certain distinctions marking Baptist theology. One such distinction was

religious autonomy. “For Baptists, private interpretation of Scripture is not a post-

Enlightenment appropriation of democratic individualism and egalitarianism; it is part of

their earliest seventeenth-century heritage” (Shurden, 1998, paragraph 20). John Leland,

an 18th century Baptist, considered conscience to be fallible because humans did not

always have the information necessary for rational decisions. Still, he believed a free

conscience was far superior to government law (Moore, 1965). Williams, a 17th century

95

Baptist, was the first English writer to firmly set forth a principled claim for freedom of

conscience and the first political leader to establish a system for the absolute protection of

freedom of conscience (Noonan, 1987).

Baptists and Principled Morality

Baptists were early pioneers of human rights and had always emphasized issues of

justice and freedom. A major difference between Baptist principles of human rights and

humanistic principles, however, was that Baptists based their principles on theology, not

sociology (Shurden, 1998). Baptists were arguing for extensive human rights (see

Helwys, 1997/1612) decades before Hobbes (1997/1651), who was a forerunner of liberal

humanism, was even arguing for the most basic right to life. According to Shurden:

What distinguished early Baptists was the conviction that all human beings, redeemed or not, have a God-given freedom to follow conscience in matters spiritual and religion. Early Baptists, as did other Christians of their time, assumed that freedom for living fully, authentically, and genuinely was found in Christ. Where Baptists differed with their culture was believing that people had as a gift from God the right to choose that path. Freedom came with creation, as well as redemption…. The origin of human rights is not found in the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment but in the free churches at the time of the Puritan Revolution. (paragraph 48) The religious and political actions of Williams served as a prime example of early

Baptist principles. Williams founded Rhode Island as the first government in the world to

grant absolute freedom of conscience to all its residents. He specified Rhode Island’s

freedom would be available to all, including Jews, Muslims and atheists (Harkness,

1939). While modern democracy was theoretically rooted in Enlightenment philosophy,

the Enlightenment philosophy was rooted in Calvinist theology. Although Williams

96

thought Quakers heretics, he ensured them absolute freedom of conscience within Rhode

Island. Rather than use political power against those he considered heretics, he used

preaching and writing in an attempt to show their errors (Moore, 1965).

To a great extent, modern political democracy was created by Williams

(Harkness, 1939). Williams’ writings on freedom of conscience were influential to the

development of John Locke, who became a pivotal inspiration for the American

Revolution (Moore, 1965). Williams recognized that the specific formation of a

government system was somewhat arbitrary, that numerous types of systems existed

throughout the world, and that many successful governments had existed in non-Christian

nations. Still, within the range of options available, Williams insisted a government’s

legitimacy grew from the sanction of the citizens not any divine right granted to

autocrats. Therefore, Williams outlined a legitimate rationale for revolution, based on the

will of the people, more than a century before the US Declaration of Independence made

a similar assertion (Harkness).

Williams argued the purpose of government was to preserve the natural freedom

of each individual from the dangers of the state of nature, where everyone was free yet

felt no security because he or she could be abused by anyone stronger (Harkness, 1939).

Williams was outlining a liberal political philosophy well before Hobbes (1997/1612)

challenged divine right and theorized the state of nature. The political and philosophical

advances of Williams, according to Moore (1965), made it easy for many to categorize

him as “an Enlightened secular liberal,” or “as primarily a political thinker,” (p. 58), but

Williams was first and foremost a Puritan clergyman. As Moore stated, “Williams

97

was…distinguished from other New England Calvinists only by the consistency with

which he carried to conclusion some of the implications of assumptions common to them

all” (p. 58).

Authority and Autonomy in Baptist Theology

According to Cullen (1998), the medieval church made the error of presenting

their doctrine as the infallible rule, and thus creating an idol. In contrast, the

Enlightenment thinkers made their own understanding the infallible rule, creating a

different idol. Cullen argued, however, that Christian theology required both doctrine and

rationality to serve as tools for interpreting the actual infallible tool, the Bible. Protestants

held a tension between biblical authority and personal religious autonomy (Beach, 1952).

Rationalism insisted people could not turn to external inspiration for moral

conviction and that people must have sought their own realization above all else.

Rationalists, such as Kant, misunderstood the concept of theological authority, however.

According to Beach (1952), Christians believed theological commitment was so

internalized that it was an internal source of wisdom.

For when the self really acknowledges the sovereignty of God over him, that acknowledgement is an inward appropriation so intense that the self no longer feels the authority to be something ‘over against’ him, something hostile to his true self, but rather the expression of his true self. The authority now compels him from within, not from without. (p. 111) Christianity was not a religion of prescription. It was a religion of incredible

thought and purpose in decision making. Beach (1952) and Waltke (1995) asserted

Christians enjoyed tremendous latitude of morally right action within their daily lives.

98

Augustine described Christian moral action thusly, “Love God and do what you want” (as

cited in Beach, p. 110).

While Catholic theology instituted the Church hierarchy as a source for absolute,

trustworthy truth, Protestants had no such authority outside the Bible. Protestants had no

chair from which a pope could proclaim ex cathedra. Protestants had no Catechism to

interpret and apply the Bible for them. Protestants must have individually and

collectively grappled with issues and hermeneutics. Beach (1952) described the

Catholic/Protestant dichotomy as one of a difference of religious authority. “It is

precisely the Protestant genius…to criticize under the Judgment of God, the finality of

any finite authority as representing exhaustively the authority of the Infinite” (p. 112).

Protestants welcomed reason into the moral debate. Still, Protestants treated reason

differently than the rationalists. “Reason has an authoritative role. But it was a secondary

role, to illumine the witness of the Word when the words were dark or obscure” (p. 113).

According to Kohlberg (1966), stage 6 thinkers used their “conscience as a

directing agent” (p. 7). This was within the theological concepts of Waltke (1995) and

Packer (1993). The role of conscience was integral to biblical morality.

Christian Education

Southern Baptists have traditionally placed great importance on education,

especially higher education. In fact, the Baptist Faith and Message, which outlined the

general beliefs of Southern Baptists, included an article on the establishment of a system

of higher education. Hobbs (1971), one of the 20th century’s most influential Baptist

99

leaders, was instrumental in formulating the Baptist Faith and Message. According to

Hobbs, “Since all social injustice is rooted in sin in the human heart, efforts for

improving the social order and establishing righteousness must begin in the regeneration

of the individual person” (p. 129). Clearly, Southern Baptists were concerned with

education and social justice.

While Baptists had been significantly involved in higher education, they also had

an historical commitment to education in churches. Moral development was a central

focus in both realms of education. Dockery (2000), as the president of a Southern Baptist

college, had suggested Christian higher education must be committed to moral

development and that cognitive development was a significant factor in moral

development. Tidwell (1996), who was a leading scholar in the study of church

education, argued the educational mission of a church relied on the proper critical

thinking of Christians. Baptist churches and Baptist colleges were expected to encourage

Christians to think critically and question their faith as a means of developing more

mature faith.

Baptists were involved in American higher education from an early stage.

Baptists, and particularly Southern Baptists, had a rich tradition in higher education,

having founded many of America’s great schools such as Brown, George Washington,

Mercy and Baylor Universities. In fact, Brown University was uniquely Baptist among

the early American universities. The Baptist theology of individual liberty led Brown to

hold “the most liberal character” of the Ivy League schools. Brown was also noteworthy

100

in that “all members [of its community] were to enjoy full, free, absolute, and

uninterrupted liberty of conscience” (Johnson, 1955, p. 5).

According to Johnson (1955), Baptist colleges were also especially focused on the

moral development of students. “The main purpose in the [biblical] educational

philosophy…[was] the development of noble individual character, the motivating force in

Christian men and women who, in consequence, would stand for and promote social

justice. Christian educators today proclaim that same purpose” (Johnson, 1955, p. 1).

Johnson discussed social justice as an outcome of education prior to Kohlberg’s or

Rawls’s work.

The research of Kohlberg and Fowler was used by Cullen (1998) to outline the

necessity of critical reflection in the moral and spiritual development of Christians. Such

an educational pedagogy was intended to holistically develop the Christian student.

Christians, according to Cullen, were obligated to earnestly think about and evaluate their

faith.

The primary functions of Christian education, according to Tidwell (1996), were

to promote Christian involvement in issues of social justice. If the church was to teach

principles of moral conduct, social justice, and critical thinking, Kohlberg’s theory and

the DIT should be significantly related to the church’s mission. One reason so many

researchers have found lower reasoning in some Christian populations may be the failure

of some religious education. Schultz and Schultz (1996) believed one problem with

church education was a frequent absence of attention to critical thinking despite

101

understanding that critical thinking was essential to fulfillment of the church’s

educational mission.

In a survey by Hoge et al. (1982), religious educators and Christian parents were

asked about their foci in church curriculum development. Baptist educators agreed “the

main goals of Christian education” include promoting “justice in the local community”

(pp. 233-234). Baptist educators ranked “justice” higher than educators from Church of

God, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal and Catholic churches. Only Methodist parents

ranked “justice” higher than Baptist parents. Hoge et al. showed tremendous support for

social, political and critical thinking in church education among Baptist parents and

educators.

Despite high interest in justice, Baptists ranked the educational goals, “the

struggle for justice is a rightful concern of the church,” and “shows concern about

liberation of oppressed people,” lower than members of any of the other denominations.

Baptists were also lowest ranking the statements, “willing to work publicly to protest

social wrongs” and in “appreciates his or her personal responsibility as a Christian for

combating social evils” (Hoge et al., 1982, pp. 233-234).

In critical thinking statements, both Baptist parents and educators ranked the goal

of “evaluate the different claims” of other faiths higher than people of other

denominations (Hoge et al., 1982, p. 234). Baptist educators were second (insignificantly

behind Episcopalians) on the statement, “understands Christianity both from within his or

her own tradition and also critically, as if from outside.” Baptist parents were highest on

that statement of critical thinking. Baptist educators were highest in “responsible view

102

toward moral questions.” Both Baptist educators and parents were highest in “values the

Bible as inspiration for personal spiritual growth,” “can identify important assumptions

and implications of Christian teachings,” and “distinguishes between the values of culture

and the values of the Gospel” (pp. 234-235). Baptists ranked “reflective understanding”

of their faith and “moral maturity” higher than any denomination (p. 238).

A key to understanding these differences was found in what members of

denominations ranked as most important. Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal and

Catholic educators ranked “has a healthy self-concept” higher than any other goal.

Conversely, Baptist educators ranked “has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” as

the primary goal (Hoge et al., 1982, p. 236).

Baptists ranked statements regarding broad moral principles such as justice higher

than other denominations. When the questions concerned social action, however, Baptists

ranked the statements lower than did members of mainline denominations. A possible

explanation is the obvious connotation of such action with the liberalism of the 1960s and

1970s. In broad terms, Baptists considered social issues and religious critical thinking

extremely important. When asked whether Christian youth should be encouraged to

march in local protests, however, the Baptists were not as supportive (Hoge et al., 1982).

Baptists believed social injustice should be fought by the church, but likely did

not want their churches to become the liberal bastions other denominations had become

since the 1970s. The distinction in mission was exemplified by the evangelical focus on

conversion and the mainline focus on self-esteem. Liberal denominations ranked goals of

Unitarianism and theological uncertainty as being supremely important. Religious

103

conviction and morality were most important to Southern Baptists, and to a lesser extent

Church of God members. Taken as a whole, the results of the study supported the

contention that Southern Baptist religious educators and parents take issues of justice and

critical thinking more seriously than do members of the other five denominations.

According to Stubblefield (1993), “Spiritual maturity includes the ability to make

ethical and moral decisions in keeping with the Christian faith” (p. 168). Reinsmith

(1995) argued Christians were obligated to think critically about their faith so as to

separate false doctrines from those that could be carried forward. Even then, Christians

were to maintain a “healthy doubt” which would lead to the development rather than

destruction of faith. Baptists were believers in absolute, universal principles and in the

importance of critical reflection and social justice. These values and practices of Baptists

were well aligned with the theoretical foundations of Kohlberg and Rest.

104

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In 1995, the federal government cut Higher Education Act funding for educational

rehabilitation programs. The warden at Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP), Burl Cain,

began thinking of new ways to educate the prisoners (Frink, 2004). Cain partnered with

the Judson Baptist Association, Louisiana Baptist Convention, and the New Orleans

Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS) to bring a privately funded theological education

to the prison (Baker, 2000).

NOBTS and LSP created a college program offering associate and bachelor’s

degrees to prison inmates. The prison college opened in 1995, awarded its first associate

degrees in 1998 and its first bachelor’s degrees in 2000 (Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections, 2000). In 2004, LSP was the only prison in the United States

offering bachelor’s degrees to inmates (Louisiana Department of Public Safety and

Corrections, 2000; 2001). The LSP campus of NOBTS was one of 17 NOBTS extension

centers and was regionally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools (Frink, 2002; Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2001)

A primary goal of the Seminary was the moral development of students. Warden

Cain had said, “I wish other prison wardens could realize what we learned—that the only

rehabilitation is moral rehabilitation” (Frink, 2004, p. 39). Robert Toney, a chaplain at

Angola, had also emphasized the moral nature of the Seminary program in his statement

105

“Moral rehabilitation is the only rehabilitation that works. If you just have education,

what you have done is just created a smarter criminal. The change must come from

within” (“Confronting recidivism,” 2005, p. 108).

Cain viewed faith-based efforts as the most promising development in criminal

rehabilitation. He has said “nothing else but [the religious programs] should get the credit

[for Angola’s change]. We always had the educational programs. The only thing we did

different was we brought God to Angola” (Frink, 2004, p. 39). The program was

considered such a success in 2004 that wardens from prisons in other states were asking

NOBTS to consider opening campuses at their prisons (Myers, 2004). NOBTS

subsequently opened a new campus at the Mississippi State Penitentiary and the

Seminary was developing programs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (Myers, 2005).

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to conduct a program evaluation for the Seminary

at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP). Specifically, this study was designed to

evaluate the program’s effect on the moral development of students at LSP. An attempt

was made to include a census of all students in the LSP Seminary population.

The evaluation of the Seminary at LSP was important as various national policies

continued to emphasize faith-based initiatives, while other policies led to America

imprisoning a higher ratio of its population than any other nation in the world (Mauer,

2003). The study of moral development was a salient issue to the American public, as

well (Rest et al., 1999). From the frames of higher education, political science and

106

criminal justice scholarship, this program evaluation was thought to be potentially helpful

to researchers, administrators, policy makers and bureaucrats in making more informed

and effective decisions. This evaluation could also serve social scientists and

philosophers in terms of advancing their understanding of the social, psychological and

spiritual development of human beings.

Despite the relevance of this program to so many fields of scholarship, no

previously published studies concerning the Seminary at LSP were located during the

review of the literature and related research. Searches were conducted through a variety

of databases, including Dissertation Abstracts, ERIC, Professional Development

Collection and Academic Search Premier. This program evaluation stood to fill an

important gap in scholarship.

Primary Research Question

To what extent do students in the NOBTS program at LSP develop moral

judgment consistent with program goals of rehabilitating students and preparing them for

effective ministry?

Research Question 1a

What, if any, statistically significant differences exist in the moral judgment of

freshman, sophomore, junior and senior-level Seminary students?

107

Research Question 1b

What, if any, statistically significant relationships exist between the moral

judgment of LSP Seminary students of different personality types?

Population and Sample

The LSP Seminary program enrolled 101 students in the fall 2005 semester.

Because the population was relatively small and the measurement instruments allowed

groups to be evaluated at reasonable costs, the entire program population was invited to

participate in the study. The DIT-1 and DIT-2 required moderate reading levels (Rest et

al., 2000). Consequently, the use of a control group was determined to be impractical.

Appropriate reading levels could not be assured for any random group of prisoners

outside the college program.

While an attempt was made to include a census of the population, all participants

were informed of their rights, including the right to not participate. Particular attention

was made to practice informed consent consistent with the Common Rule subsection on

research involving prisoners (45 CFR 46, subpart C).

In addition to the involvement of the program population, additional data were

gathered from the full-time faculty of NOBTS. The data gathered from the faculty were

used in conjunction with program population data for the purpose of better addressing the

overall research question posed in this study. Faculty data served as a benchmark for

student moral development.

108

The original plan for the program evaluation included a census of the 66 full-time

NOBTS main campus faculty. The faculty members were to be provided research

materials, including informed consent, during one of their periodic faculty meetings. In

September 2005, however, Hurricane Katrina caused the evacuation of the main campus

and the dispersing of the Seminary faculty.

The Seminary administration, comprised of 15 faculty members who concurrently

held administrative roles in the Seminary, moved temporarily to Atlanta, GA. Those 15

faculty members were asked to participate in this evaluation. An additional 15 non-

administrative faculty members were randomly selected and asked to participate. The

inclusion of faculty was chosen for three primary reasons. First, the lack of a control

group limited the conclusions made from this study. A benchmark group was not the

same as a control group, but provided some external measure. Second, Kohlberg found

the moral reasoning of teachers directly impacted the moral development of students

(Bar-Yam et al., 1980). An evaluation of faculty moral reasoning served to ascertain what

level of moral reasoning was consistent with the program’s intended outcomes. The third

rationale for including faculty followed from the second rationale. An evaluation of the

moral reasoning of faculty was sought to validate the DIT-2 for this study.

109

Instrumentation

Defining Issues Test 2

The Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) was used as the measurement instrument for

moral judgment. The DIT-2 was a paper-and-pencil instrument, which could be

completed in approximately 45 minutes. The instrument involved five moral dilemmas

presented as stories. The participant read each story and then categorized 12 statements as

to their moral relevance for the dilemma. The DIT-2 was computer scored by the Center

for the Study of Ethical Development.

The theoretical framework of the DIT and DIT-2 was presented as part of the

review of the literature. In brief, the instrument was developed by Rest (1986) based upon

Kohlberg’s (1981) theory of moral development. The DIT and DIT-2 were intended to

provide quantitative scores for the moral judgment of participants.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument Form F was used to asses

the personality types of participants. The MBTI instrument was a paper-and-pencil,

multiple-choice instrument. Form F of the MBTI was a longer form, involving 166 items

and was designed for use by researchers. Use of Form F was restricted to researchers

authorized by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT). CAPT

authorized the researcher for this program evaluation to use Form F.

110

The MBTI’s theoretical framework and relevant research were also discussed as

part of the literature review. Based on the work of Jung, the MBTI instrument was

developed by Myers and Briggs. The results of MBTI assessments included four general

categories of personality with each category including two dichotomies. Participants were

identified with one of the two dichotomies in each category.

Instrument Reliability and Validity

DIT Reliability and Validity

Rest (1986) believed the evidence for a cognitive theory of moral development

was so strong that, “if a person remains skeptical on the point that there are age trends in

moral judgment, it is doubtful that any finding in all of social science will be acceptable”

(pp. 29, 32). One of the fundamental validity traits in Kohlberg’s theory was that

numerous studies had shown stage-progression was age-related. Similarly, early research

of the DIT supported its ability to measure moral development as a factor of cognitive

maturation. According to Rest (1986), “age/education accounts for 30 to 50 percent of the

variance in DIT scores” (p. 176). So, the general theory of a cognitive basis for moral

development was well supported.

Researchers had found the DIT was sufficiently reliable with reliability

coefficients usually in the .70s and .80s (Rest et al., 2000). The DIT had an internal

reliability, using Chronbach’s alpha, of .76, while the shorter DIT-2 increased reliability

to .81. Combining the DIT and DIT-2 increased reliability to .90 but did not yield

111

significantly different results (Rest et al., 1999). The reliability of the DIT and DIT-2

were based upon hundreds of thousands of administrations. The DIT and the DIT-2

correlated extremely well with each other (Rest et al., 1999).

The DIT had been validated in terms of cognitive measurement, longitudinal

consistency, age and educational discrimination, reliability and other measures of

professional ethics and social issues through more than 400 studies. Still, the publisher of

the DIT was seeking to gather more data, especially data pertaining to demographic

groups most salient to the DIT construction and theory (Rest et al., 1999). Because this

study concerned the professional preparation of clergy, this research had the potential to

make a valuable contribution to the research literature.

According to Rest (1986), a large percentage of studies involving the DIT used

small sample sizes and often involved no more than a couple dozen participants (Rest,

1986). Literature reviewed for this dissertation included numerous studies with small

sample sizes. Many of the studies included similar, and sometimes smaller, sample sizes

than the number participants surveyed in this research (Ang, 1989; Blizard, 1980; Catoe,

1992; Faqua, 1983; Griffore & Samuels, 1978; Leland, 1990; Nelson, 2004; Watt et al.,

2000). Some studies used negligibly larger sample sizes (Hoagland, 1984; Walters, 1980;

Warren, 1992; Washington, 1999).

This study involved a population of 101 students. The size of the population was

appropriate for the DIT instrument and yielded reliable and valid statistics. The literature

review conducted for this study demonstrated the theoretical validity of the DIT-2 for this

particular evaluation.

112

The DIT had been used with Christian populations in numerous studies. Quite

often, Christian populations scored at approximately the national average. Many other

studies had shown Christians to score below average. Christian education, however, was

intended to develop the critical thinking skills consistent with principled reasoning on the

DIT. The DIT was not a perfect measure of Christian morality, as it was not designed for

Christians; however, the DIT did meet the validity requirements for this program

evaluation. Further, the DIT was determined to be the most appropriate measure available

for this research.

MBTI Reliability and Validity

The MBTI instrument was a time-tested instrument with high reliability and

validity. Internal reliability coefficients for middle-aged adults exceeded .90 for each of

the four dichotomies. Test-retest reliabilities were lower but still ranged from the low

.60s to low .80s. The psychological nature of the MBTI caused the instrument to be

susceptible to variations based upon testing conditions (Myers et al., 2003).

The validity of MBTI assessments had been evaluated by comparison with other

psychological measures. For example, the MBTI dichotomies correlated modestly with

corresponding dynamics of the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire, the California

Psychological Inventory, and the Strong Interest Inventory (Myers et al., 2003).

The MBTI instrument, like the DIT-2, was theoretically based on an assumption

of universal applicability. Further, the MBTI instrument could not report negative results.

113

No score on an MBTI report should have been construed as a bad or poor score. All

preferences were considered healthy aspects of human personality (Myers et al., 2003).

Despite the presumption of all types being equal, there were researchers who had

indicated type differences in moral reasoning; however, these findings actually supported

the validity of both the MBTI and the DIT for this program evaluation. Type differences

in moral reasoning largely fit what researchers might logically conclude based upon type

and moral stage descriptions.

The type differences in moral reasoning bore significance on the interpretation of

results for this study. The literature supported a hypothesis that Introvert (I), Sensing (S),

Feeling (F) and Judging (J) preferences would be overrepresented among LSP Seminary

students. The S, F and J preferences were predictive of lower moral reasoning scores. The

tendency of these types to predict lower moral reasoning did not, however, negate the use

of the DIT for this population. Instead, understanding these types allowed better type-

appropriate interpretation of DIT scores.

Data Collection

Students in the LSP Seminary program received letters inviting them to

participate in this study. The letters provided informed consent and requested their

signatures indicating whether they did or did not agree to participate. Those students who

agreed to participate completed the DIT-2 and MBTI in a classroom setting at Angola.

Researchers including prisoners as participants needed to be especially conscious of the

particular requirements of Common Rule subpart C. To ensure LSP Seminary students

114

did not feel any undue pressure to participate in this study, those students who attended

received informed consent in written form and verbally from the researcher prior to their

completing of the research instruments. LSP guards were not in the classroom during the

research process.

Each participant received an envelope containing the DIT-2 and the MBTI. Each

envelope was marked with a particular participant’s name. The instruments, however,

were only marked with the student’s unique identification number created by the

researcher for this program evaluation. When participants completed the instruments, the

DIT-2, the MBTI, and the envelopes were each returned separately to the researcher. This

method ensured anonymity. Individual students were known only to the researcher; once

documents were returned to the researcher, they were placed in a bag that did not leave

the researcher’s possession at any time in LSP.

The research involving the full-time faculty at the NOBTS main campus was

conducted in accordance with informed consent. To obtain participation from those

faculty members in Atlanta, the researcher delivered the materials to the offices of the

faculty members. The faculty members were requested to complete the DIT-2 and return

the instruments by mail to the researcher. Stamped, addressed envelopes were provided to

each faculty member. The Seminary was not able to provide mailing addresses of those

faculty members not in Atlanta. The researcher, in requesting participation, e-mailed

informed consent information to the 15 randomly selected faculty members. Faculty

members who agreed to participate voluntarily provided current mailing addresses.

Materials, including informed consent letters, were then mailed to participating faculty.

115

Data Analysis

The Primary Research Question posed in this study was focused on the extent to

which students in the NOBTS program at LSP developed moral judgment consistent with

program goals of rehabilitating students and preparing them for effective ministry. The

question was designed to allow holistic analysis appropriate to this unique faith-based

program evaluation. The analysis for this question was dependent upon answers to the

two sub-questions, Research Question 1a and Research Question 1b.

Research Question 1a inquired as to any statistically significant differences in the

moral judgment of freshman, sophomore, junior and senior-level LSP Seminary students.

Data obtained from the DIT-2 P scores and demographic information from the DIT-2

were analyzed. The Center for the Study of Ethical Development provided results in an

SPSS file. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate differences in

dependent variables and the independent variable. Statistical significance was calculated

based upon a probability of Type I error of less than 5 percent.

Research Question 1b addressed any statistically significant relationships

identified between the moral judgment of LSP Seminary students of different personality

types. Data obtained from the DIT-2 and MBTI were used in the analysis. Moral

judgment was categorized by P scores. Personality type variables included each of the

eight individual dichotomy designations (I, E, S, N, T, F, J and P), the 16 personality

types (e.g., INTP), the 4 personality temperaments (SJ, SP, NT and NF) and Richardson’s

(1996) four spiritualities (NF, NT, SF and ST). ANOVAs were used to investigate

differences in the dependent variable and the independent variables. Statistical

116

significance was calculated based upon a probability of Type I error of less than 5

percent.

The literature reviewed relevant to this program evaluation was limited in

significant areas of content. Little research was available concerning the moral

development of prisoners or the moral development of Baptist seminarians. While

questions of statistical significance could be determined quantitatively, program success

had not been similarly defined.

An evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in facilitating moral development

necessitated consideration of initial moral judgment and the moral judgment of exiting

students, as well as the general progress shown across each year of schooling.

Additionally, an evaluation of the moral development of students included the assessment

of growth respective to personality. Finally, this program evaluation necessitated

consideration of what moral judgment was reasonable and appropriate for this population.

The results of faculty evaluations facilitated creating a benchmark for what moral

judgments were consistent with Baptist theology.

Summary

The LSP Seminary program had existed for a decade and had been credited with

substantial success in the reform of the Angola environment. The program model was

expanding across the state of Louisiana and was now being incorporated into the

correctional programs of other states. No research had been conducted, however, to

117

evaluate this program. The purpose of this dissertation was to evaluate the LSP

Seminary’s success in facilitating moral development of students.

118

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

This study was conducted during fall of 2005 in order to evaluate the

effectiveness of the LSP Seminary program in achieving the goal of moral development

among students. Students were asked to complete the DIT-2 and MBTI instruments, and

30 NOBTS faculty members were asked to complete the DIT-2.

The LSP Seminary population consisted of 101 students. Of the 101 students in

the program, 95 agreed to complete the DIT-2, for a response rate of 94%, and 98

completed the MBTI instrument, for a response rate of 97%. In addition to the student

responses, 30 full-time NOBTS faculty members were asked to complete the DIT-2. The

contacted faculty members included 15 administrators who held faculty rank and 15 non-

administrative professors. Of the 15 administrative faculty members, four agreed to

participate, for a response rate of 27%. Of the 15 randomly selected non-administrative

faculty members, 2 agreed to participate, for a response rate of 13%. These responses

represented 9% of the total NOBTS full-time faculty.

Response rates for faculty members were low, overall. Because the faculty

member data were to be used only for benchmarking, the response rates were deemed

sufficient for this evaluation. The low response rates might be attributable to the time

requirements of the DIT-2 and the stressors undoubtedly facing faculty members still

recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

119

Research Questions

The data from the survey instruments were collected and analyzed to answer a

single Primary Research Question, which was focused on the extent to which students in

the NOBTS program at LSP developed moral judgment consistent with program goals of

rehabilitating students and preparing them for effective ministry. Analysis of the data

gathered to respond to the two sub-questions, Research Question 1a and Research

Question 1b, formed the basis for answering the primary question. The following sections

provide narratives and tabular displays for each of the research sub-questions, which

enable a response to the Primary Research Question.

Research Question 1a

What, if any, statistically significant differences exist in the moral judgment of freshman, sophomore, junior and senior-level Seminary students?

To answer this question, the DIT-2 was administered to students who agreed to

participate in this study. The dependent variables investigated were the DIT-2 P scores

and stage scores. The independent variable was the individual student’s class year.

The DIT-2 included an overall P score, as well as scores for the individual’s

likelihood of preferring choices at each of the two lower stages. Stage23 represented

choices based on self-interests. Stage4 represented choices based upon maintaining social

norms. A successful program would ideally increase P scores across time and decrease

Stage23 scores across time. Successful changes in Stage4 scores would be factors for

120

students’ levels as they began the program, because Stage4 is a transitory stage between

Stage23 and principled thinking, represented by the P scores.

The DIT-2 included several internal reliability controls. In test administrations, it

was common for 10% or more of the respondents to be disqualified due to internal

reliability checks (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003). In this administration, a mere 3% of

respondents were disqualified from the final data due to internal consistency checks. A

final sample size of 92 respondents was included in the analysis of the DIT-2 data,

representing 91% of the entire population and 97% of the participating students. The

independent variable scores for the 92 reported students are shown in Table 5.

To answer Research Question 1a, ANOVAs were conducted for the independent

and dependent variables. The analysis did not achieve statistical significance for any of

the dependent variables. The results for P scores were F(3,88) = 1.2, p >.05; for Stage23

were F(3,88) = 1.0, p > .05; and for Stage4 were F(3,88) = 0.62, p > .05. Results of

ANOVAs did not support the rejection of the null hypothesis. Results of the analysis of

variance for the independent and dependent variables are reported in Table 6.

A visual check of the mean scores revealed an apparent change in scores across

the four years of college. The changes in scores, however, did not achieve statistical

significance. One possible reason for the lack of significance may be wide variances in P

scores. The variances of scores for each class are shown in Table 7. The variances in

freshmen scores were much greater than were the variances in the other years.

121

Table 5 Independent Variable Scores for Participating Students by Class Year (N = 92)

Independent Variables N m sd Freshmen

P Score Stage23 Stage4

333333

24.5609 26.2012 43.3476

15.1426113.0175316.67556

Sophomores P Score Stage23 Stage4

121212

25.5250 22.1883 49.7875

9.068349.91914

10.10383Juniors

P Score Stage23 Stage4

252525

30.2744 22.0032 44.0424

13.1648210.7492812.22368

Seniors P Score Stage23 Stage4

222222

29.2273 21.2955 45.3864

9.8461113.0918515.34363

Total P Score Stage23 Stage4

929292

27.3551 23.3639 44.8639

12.8497312.0894114.42715

Table 6 Anova Results for the Independent and Dependent Variables

Variables Variance SS df Mean square F Sig. P score Between 588.007 3 196.002 1.195 .317 Within 14437.501 88 164.063 Total 15025.508 91 Stage23 Between 422.659 3 140.886 .963 .414 Within 12877.331 88 146.333 Total 13299.990 91 Stage4 Between 389.654 3 129.885 .616 .606 Within 18551.339 88 210.811 Total 18940.993 91

122

Table 7 Minimum, Maximum and Range of Participants’ Scores by Class Year (N = 92)

Class Year Range P Score Stage23 Stage4Freshmen Minimum .00 .00 16.00 Maximum 66.00 48.00 74.47 Range 66.00 48.00 58.47Sophomores Minimum 8.00 4.26 38.00 Maximum 38.30 38.00 68.00 Range 30.30 33.74 30.00Juniors Minimum 8.00 4.08 22.00 Maximum 54.00 40.00 66.00 Range 46.00 35.92 44.00Seniors Minimum 10.00 6.00 20.00 Maximum 48.00 48.00 70.00 Range 38.00 42.00 50.00

The program evaluator chose to test for statistical outliers to determine if the

variances may have affected statistical significance. This exploration of data was chosen

after the initial tests came close to statistical significance, but did not achieve

significance. SPSS was used to test for outliers, and two outliers were found in the P

scores of the freshmen students. No outliers were found among the other stage scores.

The two freshmen outliers had P scores of 66 and 58. Those P scores would have been

very high scores among the general public and represented the two highest scores in the

entire LSP Seminary sample. These scores approximated those found among students in

theologically liberal seminaries (m = 57.6) and moral philosophy graduate students (m =

64.4) (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003).

123

Outliers, by definition, skew the results of research. The outliers in this research

posed a particular problem for evaluation because they were similar to scores of graduate

students. An undergraduate program is unlikely to significantly improve the moral

reasoning of such students; therefore, the program evaluator chose to conduct ANOVAs

with the two outliers removed from the sample. Table 8 displays the comparison of P

Scores with outliers included and excluded.

Table 8 P Scores: Freshmen and All Participating Students by Class Year

P Scores N m sd Freshmen

P Score with outliers P Score without outliers

3331

24.5609 22.1455

15.1426112.00184

Total

P Score with outliers P Score without outliers

9290

27.3551 26.5852

12.8497311.86991

Removing the outliers and conducting an analysis of variance of the remaining P

scores resulted in the achievement of statistical significance, F(3,86) = 2.8, p < .05. The

results of the ANOVA are reported in Table 9. With the outliers removed, a statistically

significant difference was found among P scores across the four years of college. A

Tukey post-hoc comparison was conducted. It was determined the differences existed

between the freshmen and junior class years (p < .05).

124

Table 9 Analysis of Variance with Outliers Removed (N = 90)

Variance SS df Mean Square F Sig.Between 1118.359 3 372.786 2.807 .044Within 11421.267 86 132.805 Total 12539.626 89

In response to Research Question 1a, statistical significance was not found among

the data. Although overall significance was not found, an after-the-fact analysis

suggested that significant differences in P scores might be found if outliers were removed

from the sample. The differences in P scores appeared between the freshman and junior

class years.

No statistically significant differences were found in the Stage23 or Stage4 scores

of the Seminary population. A trend of differing scores was observed, however.

Sophomores used Stage23 much less often than freshmen, while sophomores used Stage4

more frequently than freshmen. The more frequent use of Stage4 for sophomores was

consistent with the less frequent use of Stage23. Juniors used Stage4 less frequently than

sophomores. This would be required for continued growth in principled thinking. In total,

mean scores showed inclinations toward Stage23 in the freshman year, Stage4 in the

sophomore year, and principled thinking in the junior year. The changes in Stage23 and

Stage4 scores, however, did not achieve statistical significance.

125

Research Question 1b

What, if any, statistically significant differences exist between the moral judgment of LSP Seminary students of different personality types? This question was intended to facilitate the interpretation of moral judgment

scores. As reported in Chapter 2, many researchers have found personality types to affect

moral judgment. Further, the personality types typical of prisoners and vocational

ministers were frequently associated with lower levels of moral judgment. Understanding

the personality types of LSP Seminary students and any effects those types had on moral

development would be beneficial to determining the success of the LSP Seminary

program in promoting higher-level moral judgment.

The LSP Seminary population consisted of 101 students, 98 of whom completed

the MBTI instrument. The results of the MBTI administration included classification of

the dichotomy preferences for each participant as well as the classification of each

participant’s overall personality type. The personality type distributions among the

participants are displayed in Table 10. Nearly half (44.9%) of LSP Seminary students

were represented by just two of the sixteen types: ISTJ and ESTJ. This table shows the

self-selection ratio of each category compared with the norms for male college students,

shown in Chapter 2. Self-selection ratio scores above 1.0 indicate over-representation of

the preference among the LSP Seminary population.

126

Table 10 Participants’ Personality Type Distributions (N = 98)

Personality Types N % Self-Selection Ratio ISTJ 27 27.55 2.21 ISFJ 10 10.20 1.88 INFJ 1 1.02 0.38 INTJ 7 6.14 1.14 ISTP 3 3.06 0.45 ISFP 4 4.08 1.00 INFP 2 2.04 0.38 INTP 3 3.06 0.46 ESTP 1 1.02 0.15 ESFP 4 4.08 0.93 ENFP 1 1.02 0.16 ENTP 2 2.04 0.30 ESTJ 17 17.35 1.35 ESFJ 13 13.27 2.43 ENFJ 0 0.00 0.00 ENTJ 3 2.04 0.35 Note. Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) types are comprised of: N=Intuition, S=Sensing, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, E=Extraverts, I=Introverts, J=Judging, P=Perceiving.

Table 11 displays the distribution of personality dichotomies. The four Sensing-

Judging (S-J) personality types comprised the four most overrepresented types among

Angola students. The four personality types most under-represented among the inmates

were all Intuitive (N) types.

127

Table 11 Distribution of Personality Dichotomies (N = 98)

Indicators N % Self-Selection Ratio Extraversion (E) 41 41.84 0.82 Introversion (I) 57 58.16 1.19 Intuition (N) 19 19.34 0.46 Sensing (S) 79 80.61 1.38 Thinking (T) 63 64.29 1.01 Feeling (F) 35 35.71 0.98 Judging (J) 78 79.59 1.50 Perceiving (P) 20 20.41 0.43

Temperament and Spirituality distributions are shown in Table 12. The most

common Temperament was SJ, represented by 68.37% of the sample. The Introversion

(I), Sensing (S) and Judging (J) preferences were overrepresented among this sample. As

was shown in Chapter 2, previous researchers found the Sensing and Judging preferences

to be predictors of lower P scores and higher religiosity. Previous researchers have also

found the Introversion and Sensing preferences to be overrepresented among prisoners.

This study supported those previous findings.

Table 12 Participants’ Temperament and Spirituality Distribution (N = 98)

Type N %Temperaments

Sensing Judging (SJ) 67 68.37Sensing Perceiving (SP) 12 12.24Intuition Thinking (NT) 15 15.31Intuition Feeling (NF) 4 4.08

Spiritualities Intuition Feeling (NF) 4 4.08Intuition Thinking (NT) 15 15.31Sensing Feeling (SF) 31 31.63Sensing Thinking (ST) 48 48.98

128

Research Question 1b was designed to provide further evidence needed to

determine the LSP Seminary’s effectiveness in promoting moral development. The data

were analyzed to determine what, if any, statistically significant differences exist in moral

judgment scores based upon personality types. Mean P scores for each dichotomy are

displayed in Table 13. Because several of the 16 personality types were represented by

just one or two students, the researcher chose to not include P score means by types. This

cautious decision was made to ensure confidentiality of assessment results.

The sample size for comparisons of type and P scores was reduced to 91 or 90%

of the population. The sample size for Research Question 1b was smaller than the overall

sample sizes because not all participants agreed to complete both instruments and three

DIT-2 scores were rejected by the internal reliability controls.

Table 13 Mean P Scores for Personality Dichotomies (N = 98)

Indicators N m sd Extraverts 37 25.34 13.40548 Introverts 54 28.65 12.50986 Intuition 18 30.99 12.15744 Sensing 73 26.39 13.00952 Thinking 59 28.31 11.79711 Feeling 32 25.45 14.76865 Judging 73 26.91 12.24905 Perceiving 18 28.91 15.61170

To answer Research Question 1b, independent t-tests were conducted for each of

the four dichotomies, and ANOVAs were conducted for the four Temperaments and the

four Spiritualities. P scores served as the dependent variables; personality preferences

129

were used as independent variables. Mean P scores for each Temperament and

Spirituality are shown in Table 14. No statistically significant differences were found in P

scores based on any of the dichotomies, the Temperaments or the Spiritualities.

Table 14 Participants’ Temperament and Spirituality P Scores

Type N m sd Temperaments

Sensing Judging (SJ) 63 26.26 12.21948Sensing Perceiving (SP) 10 27.23 18.01284Intuition Thinking (NT) 14 34.00 12.07508Intuition Feeling (NF) 4 20.50 4.12311

Spiritualities Intuition Feeling (NF) 4 20.50 4.12311Intuition Thinking (NT) 15 34.00 12.07508Sensing Feeling (SF) 31 26.15 15.63310Sensing Thinking (ST) 48 26.54 11.26595

Faculty Data

Since it was necessary to determine what levels of moral reasoning were

consistent with program goals and Baptist theology prior to answering the Primary

Research Question, faculty data were also sought. The researcher chose to ask a sample

of NOBTS full-time faculty members to complete the DIT-2. In addition to the student

responses, 30 full-time NOBTS faculty members were asked to complete the DIT-2.

The faculty members contacted for participation included 15 administrators who

held faculty rank and 15 non-administrative professors. Of the 15 administrative faculty

members, four agreed to participate, for a response rate of 27%. Of the 15 randomly

selected non-administrative faculty members, 2 agreed to participate, for a response rate

of 13%. These responses represented 9% of the total NOBTS full-time faculty.

130

Response rates for faculty members were low, overall. Because the faculty

member data were to be used only for benchmarking, the response rates were deemed

sufficient for this evaluation. The low response rates might be attributable to the time

requirements of the DIT-2 and the stressors undoubtedly facing faculty members still

recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

The mean P score of NOBTS faculty members was 34.02 (sd = 15.25). A P score

of 34.02 was lower than the average scores for American adults (m = 42.8) and

Americans with research doctoral degrees who self-reported conservative political views

(m = 43.85) (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003). A mean of 34.02 was also lower than the mean

score of 35.17 (sd = 11.69) Nelson (2004) reported for Bible college students. Faculty

scores ranged from 12 to 52.

Summary

The analysis of data for Research Questions 1a and 1b has been reported in

Chapter 4 along with relevant data obtained from faculty members. In Chapter 5, the

results of the study, focused around the Primary Research Question, will be addressed.

Chapter 5 will include a summary and discussion of findings. Limitations of the study

and recommendations for future research will also be presented.

131

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to conduct a program evaluation for the Seminary

at LSP. The Primary Research Question in this study addressed the extent to which

students in the NOBTS program at LSP developed moral judgment consistent with

program goals of rehabilitating students and preparing them for effective ministry. Data

gathered in the analysis of Research Questions 1a and 1b, as well as data gathered from

NOBTS full-time faculty members, were useful in formulating a response to the single

larger issue posed in this program evaluation.

Research Question 1a asked what, if any, statistically significant differences exist

in the moral judgment of freshman, sophomore, junior and senior-level Seminary

students. Differences in P scores did not achieve statistical significance; after removing

two outliers, however, there was some indication that significant differences might exist

between the freshman and junior years.

Research Question 1b asked what, if any, statistically significant differences exist

between the moral judgment of LSP Seminary students of different personality types. No

statistically significant type differences were found in moral reasoning of LSP Seminary

students. While mean P scores by personality type did reveal some of the hypothesized

differences, such as Intuitive Thinkers (NTs) scoring higher than other types, none of

those differences reached significance.

132

In addition to Research Questions 1a and 1b, moral reasoning data were gathered

from several NOBTS faculty members. The mean P score among faculty was 34.02 (sd =

15.25), with scores ranging from 12 to 52. The faculty data were incorporated with other

data to address the Primary Research Question.

Summary and Discussion of Findings for the Primary Research Question

To answer the Primary Research Question, it was necessary to determine what

levels of moral reasoning were consistent with program goals and Baptist theology. In

order to reach this determination, the researcher chose to ask a sample of NOBTS full-

time faculty members to complete the DIT-2.

The mean P score of NOBTS faculty members was 34.02 (sd = 15.25). A P score

of 34.02 was lower than the average scores for American adults (m = 42.8) and

Americans with research doctoral degrees who self-reported conservative political views

(m = 43.85) (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003). A mean of 34.02 was also lower than the mean

score of 35.17 (sd = 11.69) reported for Bible college students (Nelson, 2004). Faculty

scores ranged from 12 to 52.

Comparisons of students’ scores with various norms constituted a factor in

answering the Primary Research Question. According to Rest (1979b), prisoners had

been found to have a mean P score of 23.5. In this study, the freshman mean P score was

24.56. That score was reduced to 22.15 after removing the outliers. The LSP Seminary

students were determined to have begun the program at approximately the expected level

of moral reasoning. By the junior year, however, the mean P score of students was 30.27.

133

In regard to the extent to which students in the NOBTS program at LSP

developed moral judgment consistent with program goals of rehabilitating students and

preparing them for effective ministry, the researcher concluded differences in P scores

among LSP Seminary students matched expectations for a successful program. Statistical

significance was not achieved with the differences, however, unless outliers were

removed. The differences in the mean P scores of students were greater than those

typically reported in evaluations of college students. Freshman LSP Seminary students

demonstrated at a level of moral reasoning equivalent to middle-income junior high

school students (m = 23.4), while juniors scored equivalent to conservative community

college students (m = 30.75) (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003).

The results of MBTI assessments were also used to evaluate moral development

respective to program goals. As described in Chapter 2, the demographics of LSP

Seminary students were predictive of personality preferences related to lower levels of

moral reasoning. In fact, preferences for Sensing (S) and Judging (J) were

overrepresented among the LSP Seminary students. Past researchers have correlated the S

and J preferences with lower P scores, and similar results were observed in this

population. Type differences in P scores appeared as predicted with Introverts (I) scoring

higher than Extraverts (E), Intuitives (N) scoring higher than Sensors (S), Thinkers (T)

scoring higher than Feelers (F) and Perceivers (P) scoring higher than Judgers (J).

Differences in mean P scores by preferences, however, did not meet the standard for less

than 5% chance of Type I error. This means the relationship between moral development

and personality type may be due to random error.

134

Despite the MBTI data failing to meet statistical significance, the data did fit the

limited research available concerning other incarcerated men. The data also fit the

findings of previous researchers who investigated personality and moral development.

Therefore, while acknowledging the statistical chance results were caused by random

error, it is reasonable to conclude LSP Seminary students do typically have personality

preferences related to lower moral reasoning.

To answer the Primary Research Question, the results of Research Questions 1a

and 1b were combined with the results of faculty evaluations. The analysis of Research

Question 1a was not statistically significant unless two outliers were removed from the

freshmen scores. The data observed matched expectations and after removing outliers

there was an indication that statistically significant differences might exist among the

class years. Further, the differences in moral reasoning were socially meaningful.

Freshmen demonstrated moral reasoning typical of prisoners and junior high school

students, while juniors demonstrated reasoning more typical of conservative community

college students. Further, upper-level students used moral reasoning similar to some

faculty members.

The moral reasoning of teachers was a powerful influence on the moral

development of students (Bar-Yam et al., 1980). Freshman LSP Seminary students

demonstrated a mean P score approximately 12 points below the mean score for faculty.

The mean P score for juniors, however, was just 4 points below the mean for faculty.

According to Rest (1974), any program that could result in even modest moral

gains among the “extremely problematic” population of prison inmates would be

135

“spectacular” (p. 250). In this study, the differences in moral reasoning found among LSP

Seminary students were larger than those typical for college students. This evaluation,

however, was only a cross-sectional study and the results cannot be generalized beyond

this sample. Much more research is needed before reasonable claims may be made

concerning program success. This study should be an impetus for such research.

Study Limitations

The use of faculty scores had significant limitations. The faculty invited to

participate included full-time faculty on the Seminary’s main campus. Some of those

faculty members had taught at LSP, while others had not taught at LSP. Some LSP

courses had been taught by adjunct faculty. Further, the main campus of NOBTS offers

several majors not offered at LSP; some main campus faculty taught in curricular majors,

such as music and women’s ministry, that were not part of the Angola program.

Consequently, the faculty scores provided inferential evidence, at best, for the teaching at

Angola. Finally, the response rate of faculty invited to participate was sufficiently low to

raise reasonable doubt as to the generalizability of scores. The wide range of P scores

among faculty members made generalizability even more difficult.

Despite the limitations of the faculty data, the researcher believed faculty scores

were valuable as a secondary source of information for evaluating the effectiveness of the

LSP Seminary program. The faculty data were not essential to measuring the moral

development of LSP students, but the faculty data were used to better understand the

nature of the moral reasoning consistent with the LSP Seminary’s goals.

136

Implications for Policy and Practice

This study stood to fill a gap in research. The Seminary at LSP had been in

operation for a decade without a significant program evaluation. No research had been

conducted on the LSP Seminary program and little research had been conducted

concerning moral rehabilitation of prisoners or the personality types of prisoners.

Consequently, the praise given to the program by correctional officials, Seminary

officials and the media was based largely on anecdotal information. Even with this study

completed, more research is warranted for the program. Research is especially warranted

in light of the program model’s expansion into other states. This study should serve as an

impetus for new research, which may help investigators support or refine the conclusions

reported in this study.

At the present time, this study may serve policy-makers and stakeholders as

evidence that continued support for this program is defensible. Perhaps more importantly,

this study may provide necessary details for improving the program curriculum and

achievement of student-learning outcomes.

One of the best ways for students to develop higher levels of moral judgment is to

be exposed to higher-level reasoning. Because the faculty members scored higher, on

average, than students, the faculty could potentially teach at levels above student

reasoning. Such teaching would be conducive to development of students’ moral

reasoning. At the same time, the relatively low scores of faculty could pose a practical,

and rather low, limit for student development. Course curricula, including exposure to

philosophical and theological texts, may provide additional opportunities for students to

137

be exposed to principled thinking. Further, the wide range of scores found among

students could allow significant moral dialogue inside and outside of classes.

Public policy addressing prisoner rehabilitation was important considering

America’s high rate of incarceration. Previous researchers often found little gain from

prison education and the federal government discontinued support for post-secondary

prisoner education. The LSP Seminary program may provide a model for how prison

rehabilitation might be successful.

Recommendations for Future Research

This dissertation was narrowly focused on the single program goal of moral

development. That focus was chosen because it was an often-cited goal of the program

and had significant saliency for correctional leaders, policymakers, stakeholders, and the

public. An LSP Seminary program evaluation could have been targeted at numerous

other goals. Further research is warranted for the Angola program.

Because this dissertation was a cross-sectional study involving students from the

fall 2005 semester, conclusions cannot be generalized beyond the specific sample. A

longitudinal investigation may be especially beneficial in the case of the LSP Seminary.

This researcher found a wide range of scores among students in each of the four class

years; further, the two highest scores were found among freshmen. A longitudinal study

might allow more accurate assessment of students’ moral development.

A longitudinal study would allow assessment of how a student’s moral reasoning

at entry into the program affects the student’s moral reasoning as a senior or at

138

graduation. Those entering with low scores have ample room for improvement during the

college years. Conversely, this researcher can provide no indication what might happen to

the two freshmen whose P scores were already extremely high. If Richards (1991) was

correct, and Christian college students learn to reject higher levels of reasoning, the

outliers’ scores might actually decrease. This possibility seemed especially significant

considering many students scored higher than most faculty members.

Although a very low percentage of Angola inmates are released from

incarceration, an investigation of program gradates’ recidivism could shed light on

whether the moral development of students relates to improvements in behavior. The DIT

was a measure of moral reasoning, rather than moral action. There was evidence the LSP

environment had changed from frequent violence to relative calm during the years the

Seminary has been operating at LSP. No definite connection can be made, however,

between behavioral changes among Angola residents and the moral development of LSP

Seminary students.

139

APPENDIX A: DEFINING ISSUES TEST 2

140

This questionnaire is concerned with how you define the issues in a social problem. Several stories about social problems will be described. After each story, there will be a list of questions. The questions that follow each story represent different issues that might be raised by the problem. In other words, the questionnaire/issues raise different ways of judging what is important in making a decision about the social problem. You will be asked to rate and rank the questions in terms of how important each one seems to you.

This questionnaire is in two parts; one part contains the INSTRUCTIONS (this part) and the stories presenting the social problems; the other part contains the questions (issues) and the ANSWER SHEET on which to write your responses.

Here is an example of the task:

Presidential Election

Imagine that you are about to vote for a candidate for the Presidency of the United

States. Imagine that before you vote, you are given several questions, and asked which issue is the most important to you in making up your mind about which candidate to vote for. In this example, 5 items are given. On a rating scale of 1 to 5 (1=Great, 2=Much, 3=Some, 4=Little, 5=No) please rate the importance of the item (issue) by filling in with a pencil one of the bubbles on the answer sheet by each item.

Assume that you thought that item #1 (below) was of great importance, item #2

had some importance, item #3 had no importance, item #4 had much importance, and item #5 had much importance. Then you would fill in the bubbles on the answer sheet as shown below.

141

G

REA

T

MU

CH

SOM

E

LITT

LE

NO

Rate the following 12 issues in terms of importance (1-5)

X 1. Financially are you personally better off now than you were four years ago?

X 2. Does one candidate have a superior personal moral character?

X 3. Which candidate stands the tallest? X 4. Which candidate would make the best world leader? X 5. Which candidate has the best ideas for our country’s

internal problems, like crime and health care?

Further, the questionnaire will ask you to rank the question in terms of importance. In the space below, the numbers at the top, 1 through 12, represent the item number. From top to bottom, you are asked to fill in the bubble that represents the item in first importance (of those given to you to choose from), then second most important, third most important, and fourth most important. Please indicate your top four choices. You might fill out this part, as follows:

_1_ Most important item _5_ Second most important _4_ Third most important _2_ Fourth most important

Note that some of the items may seem irrelevant to you (as in item #3) or not make sense to you—in that case, rate the item as “no” importance and do not rank the item. Note that in the stories that follow, there will be 12 items for each story, not five. Please make sure to consider all 12 items (questions) that are printed after each story.

In addition you will be asked to state your preference for what action to take in

the story. After the story, you will be asked to indicate the action you favor on a seven-point scale (1= strongly favor some action, 7=strongly oppose the action).

In short, read the story from this booklet, then fill out your answers on the answer

sheet. Please use a #2 pencil. If you change your mind about a response, erase the pencil mark cleanly and enter your new response.

[Notice the second part of this questionnaire, the Answer Sheet. The Identification Number at the top of the answer sheet may already be filled in when you receive your materials. If not, you will receive instructions about how to fill in the number. If you have questions about the procedure, please ask now.

Please turn now to the Answer Sheet]

142

Famine—(Story #1)

The small village in northern India has experienced shortages of food before, but this year’s famine is worse than ever. Some families are even trying to feed themselves by making soup from tree bark. Mustaq Singh’s family is near starvation. He has heard that a rich man in his village has supplies of food stored away and is hoarding food while its price goes higher so that he can sell the food later at a huge profit. Mustaq is desperate and thinks about stealing some food from the rich man’s warehouse. The small amount of food that he needs for his family probably wouldn’t even be missed.

143

What should Mustaq Singh do? Do you favor the action of taking the food (Mark one.) ___ Should take the food ___ Can’t decide ___ Should not take the food

GR

EAT

MU

CH

SOM

E

LITT

LE

NO

Rate the following 12 issues in terms of importance (1-5)

1. Is Mustaq Singh courageous enough to risk getting caught for stealing?

2. Isn’t it only natural for a lovin g father to care so much for his family that he would steal?

3. Shouldn’t the community’s laws be upheld? 4. Does Mustaq Singh know a good recipe for preparing soup

from tree bark? 5. Does the rich man have any legal right to store food when

other people are starving? 6. Is the motive of Mustaq Singh to steal for himself or to

steal for his family? 7. What values are going to be the basis for social

cooperation? 8. Is the epitome of eating reconcilable with t he culpability

of stealing? 9. Does the rich man deserve to be robbed for being so

greedy? 10. Isn’t private property an institution to enable the rich to

exploit the poor? 11. Would stealing bring about more total good for

everybody concerned or wouldn’t it? 12. Are laws getting in the way of the most basic claim of

any member of a society? From the list above, select the four most important: ___ Most important item ___ Second most important ___ Third most important ___ Fourth most important

144

Reporter—(Story #2)

Molly Dayton has been a news reporter for the Gazette newspaper for over a decade. Almost by accident, she learned that one of the candidates for Lieutenant Governor for her state, Grover Thompson, had been arrested for shop-lifting 20 years earlier. Reporter Dayton found out that early in his life, Candidate Thompson had undergone a confused period and done things he later regretted, actions which would be very out -of-character now. His shop-lifting had been a minor offense and charges had been dropped by the department store. Thompson has not only straightened himself out since then, but built a distinguished record in helping many people and in leading constructive community projects. Now, Reporter Dayton regards Thompson as the best candidate in the field and likely to go on to important leadership positions in the state. Reporter Dayton wonders whether or not she should write the story about Thompson’s earlier troubles because in the upcoming close and heated election, she fears that such a news story could wreck Thompson’s chance to win.

145

Do you favor the action of reporting the story? (Mark one.) ___ Should report the story ___ Can’t decide ___ Should not report the story

GR

EAT

MU

CH

SOM

E

LITT

LE

NO

Rate the following 12 issues in terms of importance (1-5)

1. Doesn’t the public have a right to know all the facts about all candidates for office?

2. Would publishing the story help Reporter Dayton’s reputation for investigative reporting?

3. If Dayton doesn’t publish the story wouldn’t another reporter get the story anyway and get the credit for investigative reporting?

4. Since the voting is such a joke anyway, does it make any difference what reporter Dayton does?

5. Hasn’t Thompson shown in the past 20 years that he is a better person than in his earlier days as a shop-lifter?

6. What would best serve society? 7. If the story is true, how can it be wrong to report it? 8. How could reporter Dayton be so cruel and heartless as to

report the damaging story about candidate Thompson? 9. Does the right of “habeas corpus” apply in this case? 10. Would the election process be more fair with or without

reporting the story? 11. Should reporter Dayton treat all candidates for office in

the same way by reporting everything she learns about them, good and bad?

12. Isn’t it a reporter’s duty to report all the news regardless of the circumstances?

From the list above, select the four most important: ___ Most important item ___ Second most important ___ Third most important ___ Fourth most important

146

School Board—(Story #3)

Mr. Grant has been elected to School Board District 190 and was chosen to be Chairman. The district is bitterly divided over the closing of one of the high schools. One of the high schools has to be closed for financial reasons, but there is no agreement over which school to close. During his election to the School Board, Mr. Grant had proposed a series of “Open Meetings” in which members of the community could voice their opinions. He hoped that the dialogue would make the community realize the necessity of closing one high school. Also he hoped that through open discussions, the difficulty of the decision would be appreciated, and that the community would ultimately support the school board decision. The first Open Meeting was a disaster. Passionate speeches dominated the microphones and threatened violence. The meeting barely closed without fist-fights. Later in the week, school board members received threatening phone calls. Mr. Grant wonder if he ought to call off the next Open Meeting.

147

Do you favor calling off the next Open Meeting? (Mark one.) ___ Should call of the next open meeting ___ Can’t decide ___ Should have the next open meeting

GR

EAT

MU

CH

SOM

E

LITT

LE

NO

Rate the following 12 issues in terms of importance (1-5)

1. Is Mr. Grant required by law to have Open Meetings on major school board decisions?

2. Would Mr. Grant be breaking his election campaign promises to the community by discounting the Open Meetings?

3. Would the community be even angrier with Mr. Grant if he stopped the Open Meetings?

4. Would the change in plans prevent scientific assessment? 5. If the school board is threatened, does the chairman have

the legal authority to protect the Board by making decisions in closed meetings?

6. Would the community regard Mr. Grant as a coward if he stopped the open meetings?

7. Does Mr. Grant have another procedure in mind for ensuring that divergent views are heard?

8. Does Mr. Grant have the authority to expel troublemakers from the meetings or prevent them from making long speeches?

9. Are some people deliberately undermining the school board process by playing some sort of power game?

10. What effect would stopping the discussion have on the community’s ability to handle controversial issues in the future?

11. Is the trouble coming from only a few hotheads, and is the community in general really fair-minded and democratic?

12. What is the likelihood that a good decision could be made without open discussion from the community?

From the list above, select the four most important: ___ Most important item ___ Second most important ___ Third most important ___ Fourth most important

148

Cancer—(Story #4)

Mrs. Bennett is 62 years old, and in the last phases of colon cancer. She is in terrible pain and asks the doctor to give her more pain -killer medicine. The doctor has given her the maximum safe dose already and is reluctant to increase the dosage because it would probably hasten her death. In a clear and rational mental state, Mrs. Bennett says that she realizes this, but wants to end her suffering even if it means ending her life. Should the doctor give her an increased dosage?

149

Do you favor the action of giving more medicine? (Mark one.) ___ Should give Mrs. Bennett an increased dosage to make her die ___ Can’t decide ___ Should not give her an increased dosage

GR

EAT

MU

CH

SOM

E

LITT

LE

NO

Rate the following 12 issues in terms of importance (1-5)

1. Isn’t the doctor obligated by the same laws as everybody else if giving an overdose would be the same as killing her?

2. Wouldn’t society be better off without so many laws about what doctors can and cannot do?

3. If Mrs. Bennett dies, would the doctor be legally responsible for malpractice?

4. Does the family of Mrs. Bennett agree that she should get more painkiller medicine?

5. Is the painkiller medicine an active heliotropic drug? 6. Does the state have the right to force continued existence

on those who don’t want to live? 7. Is helping to end another’s life ever a responsible act of

cooperation? 8. Would the doctor show more sympathy for Mrs. Bennett

by giving the medicine or not? 9. Wouldn’t the doctor feel guilty from giving Mrs. Bennett

so much drug that she died? 10. Should only God decide when a person’s life should end? 11. Shouldn’t society protect everyone against being killed? 12. Where should society draw the line between protecting

life and allowing someone to die if the person wants to? From the list above, select the four most important: ___ Most important item ___ Second most important ___ Third most important ___ Fourth most important

150

Demonstration—(Story #5)

Political and economic instability in a South America country prompted the President of the United States to send troops to “police” the area. Students at many campuses in the U.S.A. have protested that the United States is using its military might for economic advantage. There is widespread suspicion that big oil multinational companies are pressuring the President to safeguard a cheap oil supply even if it means loss of life. Students at one campus took to the streets in demonstration, tying up traffic and stopping regular business in the town. The president of the university demanded that the students stop their illegal demonstrations. Students then took over the college’s administration building, completely paralyzing the college. Are the students right to demonstrate in these ways?

151

Do you favor the action of demonstrating in this way? ___ Should continue demonstrating in these ways ___ Can’t decide ___ Should not continue demonstrating in these ways

GR

EAT

MU

CH

SOM

E

LITT

LE

NO

Rate the following 12 issues in terms of importance (1-5)

1. Do the students have the right to take over property that doesn’t belong to them?

2. Do the students realize that they might be arrested and fined, and even expelled from school?

3. Are the students serious about their cause or are they doing it just for fun?

4. If the university president is soft on students this time, will it lead to more disorder?

5. Will the public blame all students for the actions of a few student demonstrators?

6. Are the authorities to blame by giving in to the greed of the multinational oil companies?

7. Why should a few people like Presidents and business leaders have more power than ordinary people?

8. Does this student demonstration bring about more or less good in the long run to all people?

9. Can the students justify their civil disobedience? 10. Shouldn’t the authorities be respected by students? 11. Is taking over a building consistent with principles of

justice? 12. Isn’t it everyone’s duty to obey the law, whether one

likes it or not? From the list above, select the four most important: ___ Most important item ___ Second most important ___ Third most important ___ Fourth most important

152

APPENDIX B: STUDENT INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

153

Bruce M. Sabin [address] [date] Dear Leavell College student: I graduated from Leavell College in 2000 and I am now a student at the University of Central Florida. With the support of my advisor, Dr. LeVester Tubbs, I am working on a research project for my degree. I am asking for your help with my research. The purpose of my research is to learn about your college program at Angola. If you agree to participate, you will complete two surveys. I will visit your class later this semester. The students who volunteer to participate will complete two surveys at that time. You do not have to participate in my surveys, and if you agree to participate now, you are free to change your mind later. The first survey is called the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2). This survey asks for your thoughts concerning how to handle social problems. You and your fellow students can provide important information on those topics because you are preparing to become leaders in your community. The DIT-2 will take about 45 minutes. The DIT-2 was written to understand how different people think about social problems. Various people around the country and in many walks of life have responded to the DIT-2. It is important for you to know the DIT-2 asks questions about difficult social problems. But, that is why I think it is important to understand how community leaders like you think about these issues. If you agree to take the survey, you may choose not to answer any questions you do not want to answer. If you want to talk about the issues after the survey, there are people, such as your chaplains, professors and ministers, who would be available to you. The second survey is called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI is designed to help people understand their own natural personalities and how God has made us. The MBTI will probably take about 30 minutes of your time. Later this year, I will visit Angola again to give a workshop to those students who participated in the MBTI. At the workshop, students will learn about the results of the MBTI and how learning about personalities can help us understand ourselves and others, especially in terms of our ministries. That workshop will take about 4 hours. Even if you agree to participate in my surveys, you do not have to come to the workshop. If you agree to come, though, I think you will have a good time and learn a lot. The workshop will be my way of thanking your for your help. If you agree to participate, you will complete the surveys during your regular class time. Participating in my research is not required by your college or your class and will not affect your grades or any other status at Angola. This is completely voluntary to help me with my research project. The only direct benefit for you may be the opportunity to learn about personalities during the workshop later in the year. No other compensation is offered for your participation. I will respect your privacy and will keep your personal survey responses absolutely private. I will keep your individual survey responses in a secure place. Only I will see your personal answers to the surveys. Any results of my research seen by other people at the College or Angola will be general information about students in the program, not about you personally. The surveys you complete will not have your name on them. Instead of a name, they will have a special number I create for you and that only I can connect to you personally. I will keep your personal information completely confidential. Remember, whether or not you agree to help with this research is completely up to you. If you agree now, you can always change your mind later. And even when taking the surveys, you will not have to answer

154

any questions you do not want to answer. If you choose not to participate, you will be able to study in the library during the surveys. Please check the box for whether you would like to participate or would not like to participate. I have also asked whether you would be willing to let me contact you in the future for other research projects. If you agree to let me contact you in the future, you are only agreeing to let me contact you and you are not making any promise to participate in those projects. If I contact you in the future, you will again have the opportunity to volunteer to participate or choose not to participate in those future projects. Please check the box for whether you agree to let me contact you again, or would rather not be contacted again. Then, sign and date the letter and return it to Dr. Robson, who is collecting these for me. I have also provided an extra copy of this letter for you to keep. If you have any questions, you may ask Dr. Robson, who can pass the questions along to me, or you can write to me directly at the address below me name. You may also contact the University of Central Florida’s Institutional Review Board with any questions about your rights in this research. The Board’s address is: the UCFIRB office, University of Central Florida Office of Research, Orlando Tech Center, 12443 Research Parkway, Suite 302, Orlando, FL 32826. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Bruce M. Sabin [address] Do you volunteer to participate in this research project?

I have read the information above and I voluntarily agree to participate in the research. I have also received a copy of this letter.

I have read the information above and I choose not to participate in the

research. I have also received a copy of this letter. May I contact you in the future about other research projects?

I voluntarily agree to give permission to be contacted in the future for other research projects.

I choose not to give permission to be contacted about future research projects.

______________________________________ ___________________ Signature Date

155

APPENDIX C: FACULTY INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

156

Bruce M. Sabin [address] (h) [home telephone number] (w) [work telephone number] [e-mail address] [date] Dear Dr. [name]: I graduated from Leavell College in 2000 and I am now a doctoral student at the University of Central Florida. With the support of my advisor, Dr. LeVester Tubbs, I am working on working on my dissertation, which is a study an evaluation of Leavell’s Angola campus. I am asking for your help with my research. In my research, I am using the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) to investigate the moral reasoning of the Angola students. In order to establish a benchmark for students, I would like you and other NOBTS faculty to complete the DIT-2. I am presuming you and your colleagues represent the highest standards of Baptist thinking on moral issues. The DIT-2 is a paper-and-pencil survey and should take between 30 and 45 minutes. I realize that is a substantial amount of your time, but I hope you will contribute to my research. Of course, your participation is completely voluntary. Enclosed with this letter is the DIT-2 question booklet, an answer sheet, and a return envelope. If you choose to participate, please complete the DIT-2 and return the documents, including this informed consent letter, in the provided envelope. The answer sheet has a unique identification number I created for you. Only I can connect your number with your answers, and I will keep your results completely confidential. Any results reported will be in the form of aggregated data. Enclosed with these documents, I have also included a copy of this letter for you to keep. If you choose not to participate, I hope you will still complete this informed consent letter and return the incomplete documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at the telephone number or address information at the top of this letter. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed to the UCFIRB office, University of Central Florida Office of Research, Orlando Tech Center, 12443 Research Parkway, Suite 207, Orlando, FL 32826. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Bruce M. Sabin Leavell College ’00

I have read the information above and I voluntarily agree to participate in the research. I have also received a copy of this letter.

I have read the information above and I choose not to participate in the research. I have also received a copy of this letter. ______________________________________ ___________________ Signature Date

157

APPENDIX D: STUDENT DEFINING ISSUES TEST 2 DATA

158

Case P Score Stage23 Stage4Freshmen 101 0.0 48.0 50.0102 2.0 48.0 38.0103 8.0 34.0 48.0104 8.5 10.6 74.5105 12.0 42.0 32.0106 12.0 28.0 56.0107 12.0 20.0 68.0108 14.0 32.0 42.0109 16.0 22.0 48.0110 18.0 16.0 50.0111 18.0 40.0 42.0112 18.0 12.0 70.0113 18.0 26.0 48.0114 20.0 14.0 66.0115 20.0 18.0 52.0116 22.0 20.0 58.0117 22.0 32.0 46.0118 22.0 38.0 30.0119 22.0 22.0 56.0120 22.0 46.0 20.0121 24.0 24.0 52.0122 24.0 32.0 44.0123 24.0 24.0 46.0124 28.0 48.0 16.0125 30.0 30.0 24.0126 36.0 0.0 64.0127 36.0 34.0 16.0128 40.0 6.0 50.0129 42.0 34.0 22.0130 46.0 6.0 40.0131 50.0 26.0 22.0132 58.0 24.0 18.0133 66.0 8.0 22.0 Sophomores 201 8.0 24.0 68.0202 16.0 24.0 56.0203 16.0 38.0 40.0204 22.0 38.0 40.0

159

Case P Score Stage23 Stage4 205 24.0 12.0 60.0206 24.0 28.0 38.0207 28.0 22.0 50.0208 28.0 14.0 58.0209 32.0 18.0 50.0210 34.0 26.0 40.0211 36.0 18.0 40.0212 38.3 4.3 57.5 Juniors 301 8.0 40.0 50.0302 16.0 24.0 54.0303 16.0 18.0 66.0304 16.0 20.0 60.0305 18.0 22.0 42.0306 20.0 36.0 42.0307 20.0 26.0 52.0308 22.0 34.0 40.0309 22.0 12.0 64.0310 24.0 34.0 42.0311 24.0 14.0 62.0312 26.0 18.0 56.0313 28.0 36.0 32.0314 28.0 28.0 42.0315 30.0 16.0 50.0316 32.0 40.0 26.0317 36.0 34.0 30.0318 36.0 20.0 40.0319 38.0 16.0 36.0320 42.9 4.1 53.1321 46.0 8.0 42.0322 48.0 16.0 34.0323 52.0 18.0 22.0324 54.0 6.0 34.0325 54.0 10.0 30.0 Seniors 401 10.0 22.0 62.0402 14.0 38.0 46.0403 22.0 16.0 44.0

160

Case P Score Stage23 Stage4404 22.0 8.0 56.0405 22.0 10.0 66.0406 22.0 6.0 70.0407 22.0 14.0 64.0408 25.0 32.5 42.5409 26.0 40.0 34.0410 28.0 12.0 54.0411 28.0 28.0 44.0412 28.0 8.0 64.0413 28.0 42.0 26.0414 30.0 10.0 54.0415 30.0 48.0 20.0416 32.0 14.0 52.0417 36.0 30.0 24.0418 40.0 34.0 20.0419 40.0 12.0 48.0420 44.0 24.0 28.0421 46.0 12.0 42.0422 48.0 8.0 38.0

161

LIST OF REFERENCES

Academic catalog. (2005-2006). New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Leavell College.

Achord, S., & D. Moore. (1998, January 28). Inmates earn seminary degrees behind bars.

Retrieved July 6, 2004, from http://www.baptiststandard.com/1998/1_28/pages/inmates.html.

Allport, G.W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 5, 432-433. Ang, A. L. P. (1989). The relationship between moral reasoning and religious orientation

of Bible college students in Singapore [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8913052.

Aristotle (1994). Moral virtue, how produced. In Singer, P. (Ed.), Ethics (p. 415). Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Aron, I. E. (1977, February). Moral philosophy and moral education: A critique of

Kohlberg's theory. The School Review 85(2): 197-217.

Aronovitz, F. B. (1984). Autonomy, socialization, strength of religious belief and socioeconomic status as predictors of moral judgment is associate degree nursing students (southeast Florida, education, ethics) [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8506550.

Baier, K. (1973). Individual moral development and social moral advance. The Journal of

Philosophy 70(18): 646-648. Baker, S. (2000, February 11). State penitentiary holds first 4-year graduation. Retrieved

July 5, 2004, from http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=5261. Baker, S. (2002, June 13). Kelley: Stock up at New Orleans Seminary. Retrieved July 5,

2004, from http://www.sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc02/newsroom/printfriendly.asp?ID=291.

Banks, K. R. (1995). The effect of religious belief on the utilization of justice concepts in

making moral decisions[Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9520200.

162

Bar-Yam, M., Kohlberg, L., & Naame, A. (1980, May). Moral reasoning of students in different cultural, social, and educational settings. American Journal of Education 88: 345-362.

Beach, W. (1952, April). Freedom and authority in Protestant ethics. The Journal of

Religion 32(2): 108-118. Bebeau, M. J., Rest, J.R., & Narvaez, D. (1999, May). Beyond the promise: A

perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher 28(4): 18-26. Bebeau, M.J., & Thoma, S.J. (2003). Guide for DIT-2. Minneapolis, MN: Center for the

Study of Ethical Development. Bennett, W. J. (1995). The Children's Book of Virtues. New York: Simon & Schuster. Berryhill, J. S. (1991). A comparison of Forms D and E of the Theological School

Inventory: Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Theological School Inventory with seminary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary.

Blizard, R.A. (1980). The relationships between three dimensions of religious belief and

moral development [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8207567.

Bramer, P.D.G. (1995). The relationship of MBTI psychological types to religious

attitudes, beliefs, and practices of selected evangelicals in Southern Ontario. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Brown, M.B., & Annis, L. (1978). Moral development and level and religious behavior.

Psychological Reports 43: 1230. Bruggeman, E.L. (1996, July-August). Cheating, lying, and moral reasoning by religious

and secular high school students. Journal of Educational Research 89(6): 340-344.

Buier, R.M., Butman, R.E., Burwell, R., & VanWicklin, J. (1989, Fall). The critical

years: Changes in moral and ethical decision-making in young adults at three Christian liberal arts colleges. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 8(3): 69-78.

Catoe, C.W. (1992). Development profiles of college students: A comparison of moral

development stage and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality types. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University.

163

Childerston, J.K. (1985). Understanding religious fundamentalists: A study of typology and moral judgment (Myers-Briggs Type, development, reasoning). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary.

Clouse, B. (1985, Fall). Moral reasoning and Christian faith. Journal of Psychology and

Theology 13(3): 190-198. Clouse, B. (1991, Winter). Religious experience, religious belief and moral development

of students at a state university. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 10(4): 337-349.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Liberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral

judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 48(1/2): 1-124.

Confronting recidivism: Prisoner re-entry programs and a just future for all Americans,

109th Cong., 1st Sess. 108 (2005) (testimony of Chaplain Robert Toney). Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. (Ed.),

Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press. Copeland, T. V. (1994). The relationship of Protestant fundamentalism and intellectual

and moral development among college students [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9517224.

Cullen, B. (1998, November/December). Teaching with faith and humility: Indoctrination

verses education. Lutheran Education 134(2): 77-89. Deemer, D.K. (1987). Moral judgment and life experience [Abstract]. Abstract obtained

from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8805745. Denny, N.M. (1988). Sociomoral development variability: Comparisons of Kohlberg's

moral reasoning stages for Jung's thinking-feeling judgment process, educational level and gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

DeWitt, C.A. (1987). Ego identity status, religious orientation and moral development of

students from Christian colleges [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8716333.

Dickinson, V., & Gabriel, J. (1982). Principled moral thinking (DIT P score) of

Australian adolescents: Sample characteristics and F correlates. Genetic Psychology Monographs 106: 24-58.

164

Dockery, D.S. (2000, September 20). Integrating faith and learning in higher education.Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://66.116.223.30/pdf/IntegratingFaithAndLearning.pdf.

Ernsberger, D.J. (1977). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious identification and level of moral

development. Dissertation Abstracts International 37: 6302B (University Microfilms no. 77-11, 510).

Ernsberger, D., & Manaster, G. (1981). Moral development, intrinsic/extrinsic religious

orientation and denominational teachings. Genetic Psychology Monographs 104, 23-41.

Everhart, D.D. (1992). An evaluation of the black experience in Spartanburg Methodist

College's correctional institutions' higher education program, Clemson University Houston Center for the Study of the Black Experience in Higher Education. (Retrieved May 15, 2005 from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ERIC no. ED364638).

Faqua, A.K. (1983). Moral reasoning and formal-operational thought: A comparison of

science majors and religious majors in three church-related colleges [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8319059.

Ferre, N.F.S. (1951, October). Theology and ethics. The Journal of Religion 31(4): 244-

253. Flanagan, O. & Jackson, K. (1987, April). Justice, care, and gender: The Kohlberg-

Gilligan debate revisited. Ethics 97: 622-637. Friend, G.G. (1991). The relationship of formal religious education to the moral judgment

development of college students [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9201988.

Frink, C. (2004, May). Breaking into prison. Christianity Today: 36-39. Getz, I.R. (1985). Moral reasoning, religion, and attitudes toward human rights

[Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8526415.

Gilgun, J.F. (1995, May). We shared something special: The moral discourse of incest

perpetrators. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 265-281. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

165

Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations. Mapping the moral domain: A contribution of women's thinking to psychological theory and education. In Gilligan, C., Ward, J.V., Taylor, J.M. & Bardige, B. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press: 73-86.

Good, J.L., & Cartwright, C. (1998, June). Development of moral judgment among

undergraduate university students. College Student Journal. 32. Griffore, R.J., & Samuels, D.D. (1978). Moral judgment of residents of a maximum

security correctional facility. The Journal of Psychology 100: 3-7. Grimley, L.K. (1991). A theological persepctive on Kohlberg's sixth stage of moral

development. Journal of Psychology and Christianity: 293-299. Guldhammer, B.A. (1982). Factors in the college experience relating to moral judgment

development [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8229272.

Gump, L.S., Baker, R.C., & Roll, S. (2000, Spring). The Moral Justification Scale:

Reliability and validity of a new measure of care and justice orientations. Adolescence 35(137): 67-76.

Hansen, P.J. (1995). The relationship between moral judgment and Christian beliefs with

moderator variables of intrinsic religious orientation, socioeconomic status, year in school, and IQ [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9533984.

Hare, J.E. (2001). God's call: Moral realism, God's commands, and human autonomy.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. Harkness, R.E.E. (1939, March). The development of democracy in the English

Reformation. Church History 8(1): 3-29. Harman, R.L. (1982). An investigation of the use of Jungian psychological traits, career

interests, and ACT scores in determining students compatibility with a small, church-related college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.

Harris, A.T. (1981). A study of the relationship between stages of moral development and

the religious factors of knowledge, belief and practice in Catholic high school adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.

Hasler, J.F. (1987). The relationship between character type and cognitive-moral

development. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Arizona.

166

Helwys, T. (1998/1612). A short declaration of the mystery of iniquity. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Henson, R.G. (1973). Correlativity and reversibility. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18):

648-649. Hirsh, S.K., & Kise, J.A.G. (2000). Looking at type and spirituality. Gainesville, FL:

Center for Applications and Psychological Type, Inc. Hoagland, D.D. (1984). Moral judgment and religious belief: An investigation of the

Moral Majority (Kohlberg) [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8505696.

Hobbes, T. (1997/1651). Leviathan. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Hobbs, H.H. (1971). The Baptist faith and message. Nashville: Convention Press. Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character: A psychological perspective.

Psychological Bulletin 79: 217-231. Hoge, D.R., Heffernan, E., Nelsen, H.M., O'Connor, J.P., Philibert, P.J., & Thompson,

A.D. (1982). Desired outcomes of religious education and youth ministry in six denominations. Review of Religious Research 23(3): 230-254.

Hill, P. C. H., & Hood, R.W. (Eds.) (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL:

Religious Education Press. Horan, H.D., & Kaplan, M.F. (1983, December). Criminal intent and consequence

severity: Effects of moral reasoning on punishment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9(4): 638-645.

Jessor, R.J., & Jessor, S. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A

longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press. Johnson, C.D. (1955). Higher Education of Southern Baptists: An institutional history

1826-1954. Waco, TX: The Baylor University Press. Johnson, J.C. (1991). An analysis of the relationship between personality type and career

satisfaction of clergy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marquette University. Joy, D. (1986). Some critical adaptations for Judeo-Christian communities. In Modgil, S.

& Modgil, C. (Eds), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy. Philadelphia: Falmer Press: 401-413.

167

Kant, I. (1994a). On a supposed right to lie from altruistic motives. In Singer, P. (Ed.), Ethics (pp. 280-281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1994b). The categorical imperative. In Singer, P. (Ed.), Ethics (pp. 274-279).

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karpowitz, D., & Kenner, M. (n.d.). Education as crime prevention: The case for

reinstating Pell Grant eligibility for the incarcerated. Bard Prison Initiative, Card College. Retrieved June 19, 2005 from http://www.bard.edu/bpi/images/crime_report.pdf.

King, P.M., & Meyhew, M.J. (2002). Moral judgment development in higher education:

Insights from the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Moral Education 31(3): 247-270.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years

10 to 16. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago. Kohlberg, L. (1966, Spring). Moral education in the schools: A developmental view. The

School Review 74(1): 1-30. Kohlberg, L. (1967). Moral and religious education and the public schools: A

developmental view. In Sizer, T. (Ed.), Religion and public education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequecy of a highest stage of moral

development. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 630-646. Kohlberg, L. (Ed.). (1981). Essays on Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row. Kohlberg, L. (1982, April). A reply to Owen Flanagan and some comments on the Puka-

Goodpaster exchange. Ethics 92(3): 513-528. Kohlberg, L., & Power, C. (1981). Moral development, religious thinking, and the

question of a seventh stage. In Kohlberg, L. (Ed.), Essays on Moral Development (pp. 311-372). New York: Harper and Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Ryncarz, R. (1990). Moral development, religion thinking, and the

questions of a seventh stage. In Kohlberg, L. (Ed.), Essays on Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Kuran, T. (1997). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference

falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

168

Lee, J.M. (1980). Christian religious education and moral development. In Munsey, B. (Ed.), Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg: Basic issues in philosophy, psychology, religion, and education (pp. 326-358). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

Lee, S.W. (1985). The orthodoxy of Christian beliefs and Jungian personality type.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota. Leeland, P.L. (1990). Effect of participation in the clinical pastoral education program

upon level of moral development among clergy [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9025616.

Lippin, L.B. (1988). A study of personality types of inmates at the Maryland Correctional

Institution for Women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Livernoise, R. (1987). Criminal types, prison stripes. Paper presented at the International

Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL. Locke, J. (2000/1690). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (2000, September). Strategies to

reduce the growth of incarceration in the state of Louisiana. Retrieved July 29, 2005 from http://www.corrections.state.la.us/Whats NEww/PDFs/STRGI.pdf.

Louisiana State Penitentiary Museum. (2001, January). The Angola story [Electronic

version]. Retrieved July 5, 2004, from http://www.angolamuseum.org/story.htm. Louisiana Department of Corrections. (n.d.a). Educational programs. Retrieved July 7,

2004, from http://www.corrections.state.la.us/lsp/educational.htm. Louisiana Department of Corrections. (n.d.b) Rehabilitative services/work programs

[Electronic version]. (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2004. from http://www.corrections.state.la.us/lsp/rehab_work_programs.htm.

Maslow, A. (1987/1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Mauer, M. (2003, June 20). Comparative international rates of incarceration: An

examination of causes and trends. Retrieved April 5, 2005, from http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf

McGeorge, C. (1976), Some correlates of principled moral thinking in young adults.

Journal of Moral Education 5(3): 265-73.

169

McMahon, T.R. (1992). The relationship between moral development and personality type of university undergraduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.

McNeel, S.P. (1991, Winter). Christian liberal arts education and growth in moral

judgment. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 10(4): 311-322. Mill, J.S. (2002/1861). Utilitarianism. Sher, G. (Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Miller, J.G., & Bersoff D.M. (1992). Culture and moral judgment: How are conflicts

between justice and interpersonal relationships resolved? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 541-554.

Moore, D. (1997, December 29). First class from Angola prison earn New Orleans

Seminary degrees. Retrieved July 6, 2004, from http://www.baptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?ID=4804.

Moore, L. (1965, March). Religious liberty: Roger Williams and the Revolutionary era.

Church History 34(1): 57-76. Myers, G. (2004, June 21). Kelley sees 'manna principle' in God's provision at NOBTS.

Retrieved July 6, 2004, from www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18526 Myers, G. (2005, May 23). NOBTS awards 117 degrees during prison graduation.

Retrieved from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary website at http://www.nobts.edu/ publications/News/AngolaGrad05.html.

Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (2003). MBTI® Manual,

3rd Edition. Palo Alto, CA: CPP. Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M.J., Thoma, S.J., & Rest, J.R. (Eds.). (1999). Postconventional

moral thinking: A new-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Nelson, D. (2004, Spring). Bible knowledge and moral judgment: Knowing Scripture and

using ethical reasoning. Journal of Research on Christian Education 13(1): 41-57. Nelson, D.R. (1998). The development of moral judgment, religiousness, and general

knowledge: A longitudinal study of Bible college students [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9921445.

Nelson, S.D. (1995). Learning their lesson: The impact on recidivism of providing

college courses to inmates. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

170

Western and Pacific Association of Criminal Justice Educators, Reno, NV. (retrieved May 2, 2005 from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ERIC no. ED401849).

Noonan Jr., J.T. (1987). Principled or pragmatic foundations for the freedom of

conscience? Journal of Law and Religion 5(1): 203-212. O’Brien, J.-M. (2000). An examination of the relationships between moral reasoning

ability and personality type preference in pre-service teachers utilizing the DIT and the MBTI. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.

Packer, J.I. (1993). Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and

insights from twenty years of research. New York: Jossey-Bass. Phoon, C.Y. (1987). A correlational study of Jungian psychological types and nineteen

spiritual gifts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. Radich, V.M. (1982). Conservatism, altruism, religious orientation and the Defining

Issues Test: With Catholic, Brethren and non-religious adolescents. Unpublished manuscript. Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia.

Rawls, J. (1957, October 24). Justice as fairness. The Journal of Philosophy 54(22): 653-

662. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Redford, J.L. (1993). Psychological type and moral development. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Houston. Reed, D.R.C. (1997). Following Kohlberg: Liberalism and practice of the democratic

community. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Reed, J.E., & Prevost, R. (1993). A history of Christian education. Nashville: Broadman

& Holman. Reinsmith, W. (1995). Religious life and critical thought: Do they need each other?

Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/summ95/!reinsmi.html.

171

Rest, J. (1974). Developmental psychology as a guide to value education: A review of 'Kohlbergian' programs. Review of Educational Research 44(2): 241-259.

Rest, J.R. (1979a). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press. Rest, J.R. (1979b). Revised manual for the Defining Issues Test: An objective test for

moral judgment development. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Moral Research Projects.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York:

Praeger. Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M.J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a

revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology 91(4): 644-659.

Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D, Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M.J. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach

to morality research. Journal of Moral Education 29(4): 381-395. Richards, P.S. (1991, June). The relationship between conservative religious ideology

and principled moral reasoning: A review. Review of Religious Research 32(4): 359-368.

Richardson, P.T. (1996). Four spiritualities. Gainesville, FL: Davies-Black Publishing.

Rousseau, J.-J. (1988/1762). On social contract. In Ritter, A. & Bondanella, J.C. (Eds.), Rousseau's political writings. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Ruppart, R.E. (1985). Psychological types and occupational preferences among religious

professionals: A psycho-social, historical perspective (Myers-Briggs, Jung, psychology). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.

Sandhu, H.S. (1997/1998, August). A drug offenders’ treatment at Bill Johnson

Correctional Center, Alva, OK, by the CBTI, Freedom Ranch Inc. final evaluation. [Electronic version]. Journal of Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 4. Retrieved from the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, Feb 15, 2005, http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/.

Sanson, B.W. (2000). Personality and tenure among Southern Baptist pastors pursuing a

doctor of ministry degree. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

172

Schneewind, J.B. (1992). Autonomy, obligation, and virtue: An overview of Kant's moral philosophy. In Guyer, P. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Kant (pp. 309-341). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schultz, T., & Schultz, J. (1996). Why nobody learns much of anything at church: And

how to fix it. Loveland, CO: Group. Severson, L. (2004, March 26). Angola Bible school. Religion & Ethics Newsweekly,

episode 730. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ religionandethics/week730/cover.html.

Shaver, D.G. (1984). A longitudinal investigation of the moral development of selected

students at a conservative religious college (Rest, Kohlberg) [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8428297.

Shurden, W.B. (1998, Winter). The Baptist Identity and the Baptist Manifesto.

Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.mercer.edu/baptiststudies/addresses/Baptist Manifesto.htm

Singer, P. (Ed.) (1994). Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. (2003/1776). The wealth of nations. New York: Bantam. Snarey, J.R. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical

review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin 97: 202-232. SPSS, 12.0. (2004). Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Stevenson, S.F., Hall, G., & Innes, J.M. (2003, May). Sociomoral reasoning and criminal

sentiments in Australian men and women violent offenders and non-offenders. International Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1(1): 111-119.

Stoop, D.A. (1979). The relationship between religious education and the process of

maturity through the developmental stages of moral judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.

Stubblefield, J.M. (1993). The effective minister of education: A comprehensive

handbook. Nashville: Broadman & Holman. Taylor, L.J. (1992). Moral decisions and psychological type: Gender, context and the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas.

173

Tidwell, C.A. (1996). The educational ministry of a church: A comprehensive model for students and ministers. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

Tyndale, W. (2000/1528). The obedience of a Christian man. New York: Penguin Books. U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1994). Assessing the effectiveness of criminal justice

programs. Retrieved July 29, 2005 from http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/reports/ handbook1.html.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). Improving the nation's criminal justice system:

Findings and results from state and local program evaluations. Retrieved July 20, 2005 from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/166822.pdf.

Volker, J.M. (1979). Moral reasoning and college experience. Unpublished manuscript.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Wahrman, I.S. (1980). A study of the relationship of dogmatism, religious group

membership, and moral judgment development [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8110688.

Wahrman, I.S. (1981, July). The relationship of dogmatism, religious affiliation, and

moral judgment development. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 108(2): 151-154.

Wallwork, E. (1980). Morality, religion, and Kohlberg's theory. In Munsey, B. (Ed.),

Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg: Basic issues in philosophy, psychology, religion, and education (pp. 269-297). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

Walsh, S.M.S. (2000). Why does a large prison population yield so few participants in a

college program offered at prison sites? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, New York, NY. (Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ERIC no. ED459314).

Walters, T.P. (1980). A study of the relationship between religious orientation and

cognitive moral maturity in volunteer religion teachers from selected suburban Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 8022800.

Waltke, B.K. (1995). Finding the will of God: A Pagan notion? Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdman's Publishing Co.

174

Warren, T.M. (1992). Ego identity status, religiosity, and moral development of Christian and state high school and college students [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9231958.

Washington, V.S. (1999). The relationship of spirituality and religious life to the moral

development of college students [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 9935041.

Watt, M.C., Frausin, S., Dixon, J., & Nimmo, S. (2000, June). Moral intelligence in a

sample of incarcerated females. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(3): 330-355. Whelchel, M.E. (1996). The relationship of psychological type to the missionary calling

and cross-cultural adjustment of Southern Baptist missionaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary.

Wilcox, M.M. (1986). Contributions of Kohlberg's theory to theological epistemology.

Lawrence Kohlberg: In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Consensus and controversy (pp. 391-400). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Wood, A.W. (1992). Rational theology, moral faith, and religion. In P. Guyer (Ed.), The

Cambridge companion to Kant (pp. 394-416). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, R.L. (2001). The relationship of community service and the moral judgment of

freshmen at a Christian college [Abstract]. Abstract obtained from Proquest: Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT 3013129.

Young, J.S., Cashwell, C.S., & Woolington, V.J. (1998). The relationship of spirituality

to cognitive and moral development and purpose in life: An exploratory investigation [Electronic version]. Counseling & Values, 43(1). Retrieved February 12, 2005 from Academic Search Premier, 01607960.